Slide 1: London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme
“Analysing the London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme: Governance and Impact”
Hello, everyone!! Here I am going to present the governance structure of a real-life programme and its impact on its performance. Here I will shed light on the “London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme.”
Slide 2: Agenda
In this presentation I have mainly covered these points to represent analysis of “London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme” in depth addressing potential issues, governance impact and provide recommendations.
Slide 3: Introduction
- This presentation explores the design and engages in a critical review of the “London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme”, with shaded light on its governance, performance and impact.
- This will emphasise how strategic programme management can be successfully designed with efficient management of costs, client satisfaction, time and quality (Ashkanani and Franzoi, 2022).
- It specifically analyses the governance structure and socio-economic consequences of this selected program, including effective programme management practices.
Generally, time, costs, and client satisfaction maintenance to ensure the quality of work are the key pillars behind a successful programme generation (Ashkanani and Franzoi, 2022). Here will present the evaluation of the “London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme” as a real-life strategic programme and will analyse its effective management. Here elaborate on how large projects or megaprojects are managed and the repercussions of their effects on society. An important implication of this analysis is in establishing the applicability of programme management frameworks and governance structures to sustainable programme delivery objectives. This programme selection is highly justified in terms of the scale of expenditure and is rather complex in specifying the final impact. In that case, undoubtedly this is a mega project (Ashkanani and Franzoi, 2022). Concerning this program here will explore its associated issues and accordingly will showcase some effective recommendations.
(Source: Ashkanani and Franzoi, 2022)
Slide 4: Overview of the London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme
- “London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme” was designed to leverage the Games’ facilities and visibility to spur regeneration, increase community involvement and encourage sports practice across the UK (Olympics.com, 2024).
- Specifically, aimed at creating a regenerated East London, enhancing accessibility to the public and creating sustainable sports and community legacy from Olympic activities like the Queen Elizabeth Park.
- Provided effective urban transformation, physical activity promotion of the economy, and long-term development of the sporting facilities.
This Programme was intended to ensure high utility Games due to extensive investment in urban renewal, application of community inclusiveness and physical revitalisation, and improvement of sports infrastructure. It concentrated on regeneration of the East London some of the projects included the original Olympic Park renamed Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park. It has welcomed 2.5 million visitors in 2023 (Olympics.com, 2024). The programme was also targeting an increase in sports participation and according to the survey by Sport England conducted in 2013, there was an improvement in physical activity among the people of London by 15%. These efforts also led to massive local economic development with an estimated development of £2.1bn by 2015 (Postlethwaite et al. 2020).
(Source: Olympics.com, 2024)
Slide 5: Key Highlights of the Programme
- Brought new infrastructure and residential structures to the East London area.
- Boosted sports participation globally.
- A boost of 10,000 new opportunities for employment in the construction and hospitality industry (Gardner, 2020).
- Created the the Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park.
- Some policy changes that were promoted included issues of sustainability.
- Improved the tourism sector in London enhancing visitors access through millions of tourists in the events.
Undoubtedly, the London 2012 Legacy Programme was revolutionary for London. This brought a new infrastructure, new complexes and the “Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park” which boosted East London’s hospitality business significantly (Queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk, 2024). The program had a positive effect on sports engagement across the UK. It produced thousands of new employments, especially in the construction and accommodation business. It supports ethical environmental practices and takes initiatives accordingly (Gardner, 2020). Moreover, the heritage program contributed to growing London’s tourism potential for millions during the years after the event and for the further long-term city’s development.
(Source: Queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk, 2024)
Slide 6: Potential issues of the programme: Budget Overruns
- As per the report, this program was planned to budget initially about £2.4 bn while overrun by £9.3bn (Olympics.com, 2024).
- Key drivers of the overspend included security upgrades and unexpected infrastructure needs.
- This highlights the difficulty of managing financial risks and maintaining accurate budget estimates in large-scale projects.
Despite the successful consequences, the “London 2012 Legacy Programme” management process has suffered from diverse challenges as well. The planned budget of about £2.4 bn was surpassed due to uncertain planning and unforeseen infrastructural demands changes. This highlights inefficient budget planning is the most concerning challenge for any intricate or mega project (Bahamid et al. 2024). This issue emphasises the challenges of managing financial risks in large-scale projects, especially in dynamic urban settings.
(Source: Bahamid et al., 2020)
Slide 7: Potential issues of the programme: Delayed infrastructure delivery
- A megaproject usually involves multiple stakeholders which enhance its intricacy.
- This program was primarily targeted to make space for 30,000 to 40,000 homes in East London (Theguardian.com, 2024).
- Such mega planning and intricate coordination issues between local agents and developers are delayed in infrastructure delivery.
- The “Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park” project also did not achieve all its planned social benefits (Gov. uk, 2024).
Post-Olympics, the Legacy Programme faced notable delays in delivering promised infrastructure, particularly housing and community facilities. While the Games were completed on time, post-event regeneration projects such as the construction of affordable homes were significantly delayed. For example, the target of 30,000 new homes in East London was hindered by complex planning processes and coordination issues among local authorities and developers (Theguardian.com, 2024). Additionally, the redevelopment of the “Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park” took longer than expected, causing a lag in realising the full social benefits. These delays underscore the difficulties in managing large, multi-phase projects, especially when various stakeholders have competing priorities.
(Source: Gov. uk, 2024)
Slide 8: Potential issues of the programme: Governance management challenges
- Challenges associated with governance and coordination of this programme through its “tiered governance structure” involving the national, the local and the private (Caplan and Gillespie, 2020).
- The Olympic Delivery Authority, local councils, and developers had different priorities, which slowed the decision-making process.
- Due to the fragmentation of governance, there were interruptions in the communication and achievement of objectives.
The complexity of this programme become more intricate concerning its governance and coordination. The governance challenges of the programme were structured in tiers that involved the “Olympic Delivery Authority” (ODA), the local councils, government agencies, and private developers. All of them have different perceptions which create controversies involving the land resources usage and the proposed plans for the housing renewed the pace of projects like the “Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park” (Shipway et al. 2020). Lack of integration and lack of coordination in decision-making processes may lead to governance inefficiencies.
(Source: Caplan and Gillespie, 2020)
Slide 9: Potential issues of the programme: Socio-economic challenges
- Though it has provided enormous employability for socio-economic development, however, most of the employment was seasonal and temporary (Lovett et al. 2020).
- During post-Games periods housing costs have significantly increased which makes potential threats to low-income households.
- Some localities in East London experienced limited sustainable impacts and raised questions about the fairness of the regeneration process.
The “London 2012 Legacy Programme” aimed at achieving significant positive changes in socio-economic aspects, though it achieved the goal partially. Research has acknowledged that about 46,000 jobs were created but many were temporary. In addition, there was also a significant rise in property values in East London where properties increased by 64% from 2012 to 2016 thus making housing unreasonably expensive for the long-term residents (Lovett et al. 2020). This led to much debate and many people complaining of gentrification whereby the rich were replacing the poor in the area. While there were some positive changes like better infrastructure, a social divide such as the inequality in the distribution of the benefits made the Londoners realise the need for better regeneration policies in the megaprojects.
(Source: Statista.com, 2024)
Slide 10: Programme Governance Structure
(Source: Self-Created)
- The ODA “Olympic Delivery Authority” that ensured project execution effectively (Postlethwaite et al. 2020).
- Local authorities that balanced the needs of community with the respective legacy goals.
- Partnerships of private sector drove sustainability and economic referenration (Whannel, 2021).
SN: This is in this context, the governance structure of the London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme had a great role to play in determining its outcomes. The execution of the project was basically led by the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) as it had responsibilities over the transformation of East London in ensuring that the infrastructure was in line with the Olympic standards (Postlethwaite et al. 2020).
However, the tiered governance that involved the local authorities and the private stakeholders resulted in disagreements and slow decision-making at times. It has further fragmented effective communication and coordination, thus causing delays in the delivery of promised community benefits.
Moreover, the involvement of private sector partners, necessary as it is to economic regeneration efforts, tended to favor profit over sustainable community development at times (Whannel, 2021). An integrated approach should be designed to bring the objectives of all stakeholders into alignment with long-term legacy goals and to encourage both transparency and accountability.
Slide 11: Programme Governance Structure (Contd.)
(Source: Self-Created)
- 200 organisations have effectively contributed to the governance to ensure perspectives variety (Essex and Latuf de Oliveira Sanchez, 2024).
- The ODA have managed budget of £2.1 billion for the projects of sustainable infrastructure (Kokolakakis and Lera-Lopez, 2020).
- The corporation of legacy development established in the year 2012 to ensure regeneration benefits ongoing (Essex and Latuf de Oliveira Sanchez, 2024).
SN: The structure of governance of the London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme involves collaboration between more than 200 organisations, which include government bodies and private sector partners, thus affording the involvement of diverse stakeholders (Essex and Latuf de Oliveira Sanchez, 2024). However, the level of complexity often encountered problems in proper decisions and effective communication and proved to be a factor that held up the delivery of promised benefits to the community. The ODA’s £2.1 billion management was designed to be sustainable and meant for infrastructure (Kokolakakis and Lera-Lopez, 2020). Sometimes in the pursuit of more quickly delivered economic advantages, therefore, legacy goals were sacrificed (Kokolakakis and Lera-Lopez, 2020). The establishment of the Legacy Development Corporation in 2012 was a strategic first step in guiding regeneration activity, but would only prove effective if its stakeholders did not diverge and lost accountability over time. A more integrated approach could further enhance transparency, making sure that the continuation of the legacy benefits is for generations to come.
Slide 12: Impact of the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) on Programme Success
(Source: statista.com 2024)
- LLDC has effectively managed £1.5 billion regeneration of east london (Flyvbjerg et al. 2021).
- 40,000 jobs aproximately created after the establishment.
- LLDC has also engaged effectively over 2 million residents by events and programs (Flyvbjerg et al. 2021).
SN: The LLDC has stepped up to the responsibility of delivering success in the London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme. Effective management of over £1.5 billion of regeneration investment has transformed infrastructure and community facilities across East London (Flyvbjerg et al. 2021). With the creation of new jobs recognised as a major contributor of around 40,000 new jobs, but also driving local economic growth. While the programs benefit over 2 million residents and instill community ownership of legacy initiatives, sustainability and inclusivity in benefits are also at risk. There is a need for continued collaboration between stakeholders to continue addressing the needs of the community and ensuring regeneration aligns its efforts to deliver long-term legacy benefits for lasting and enduring impacts on the region.
Slide 13: Negative impact of the Greater London Authority (GLA) as Programme Governance Structure on Strategic Alignment
(Source: researchgate.net 2020)
- The influence of GLA mainly caused occasional delays in legacy goals aligning (Shipway et al. 2020).
- Priorities of conflicting between other stakeholders and GLA slowed process of decision-making.
- Coordination limitation resulted in community projects delays.
SN: The influence of the GLA sometimes constrained the governance structure of the London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme because of conflicting priorities that competed with the needs for strategic alignment. Project execution was sometimes slowed down and delayed impact on the timely realisation of community benefits due to conflicting priorities between the GLA and other stakeholders (Shipway et al. 2020). Delayed reaction to emerging issues that undermined the effectiveness of the program was sometimes resulted from having involved decision-making processes. Further, the community projects were also compounded by an unstreamlined coordination between the GLA and the local authorities. For the purpose of actually enhancing the effectiveness of the program, the following would be very pertinent: improving better communication and collaboration among stakeholders whilst aligning the objectives of GLA seamlessly with the long-term legacy goals.
Slide 14: Negative Impact of Programme Governance Structure on Stakeholder Engagement in the London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme
(Source: Self-Created)
- Stakeholder representation limitation led to significant disengagement (Brimicombe and Li, 2020).
- Communication channels ineffectively resulted many missed opportunities for the input.
- Conflicts takes place between many governance levels that slowed the making of decision and cause delays in project implementation of community.
SN: Low level of stakeholder engagement was a challenge in the governance structure of the London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme. The very minimal nature of representation was prevalent whereby less than 30% of local residents participated in feedback forums. This resulted in an enormous gap within community needs being delivered by the project. Ineffective communication channels further worsened the situation since 60% of the stakeholders were complaining because of a lack of sufficient timely information and opportunities to contribute in time (Brimicombe and Li, 2020)). Furthermore, conflicts at the level of governance have slowed down the process of decision-making, resulting in project implementation by the communities that are delayed by about 25% (Brimicombe and Li, 2020)). All these have to be dealt with if the programme is to sustain engagement and meet community expectations and legacy objectives.
Slide 15: Recommendations for Governance Improvement
(Source: Self-Created)
- Improving effective coordination between local authorities, ODA and private sector for reducing delays and time feedback ensuring (Byers et al. 2020).
- Assigning responsibility clearly for the risk management in LLDC and ODA.
- Implementing reporting systems in real-time with LLDC and GLA for tracking project progress legacy.
SN: Important changes must be made for good governance of the London 2012 Olympics Legacy Program. An enabling channel of communication between key stakeholders like ODA, LLDC, and the private partner must be engaged for better results, as well as avoiding delays and ensuring feedback in due time for the improvement of the effectiveness of the program. Increasing accountability by assigning decision-making responsibility for risks involved and at various stages of project execution to specific individuals in ODA and LLDC will shrink delays in decision-making and expedite the project (Byers et al. 2020).
That can go in tandem with increased openness and reporting through real-time means, managed by the GLA and LLDC, thus enabling project stakeholders to monitor their projects, intervene at any lacunae that arises, and ensure that all projects achieve their set objectives. All this is necessary to prevent such confusion, promote teamwork, and achieve long-term permanency for legacy projects.
Slide 16: Recommendations for Governance Improvement (Contd.)
(Source: Self-Created)
- Prioritising community of long-term benefits over the profits of short-term into regeneration efforts economically (Smith and McGillivray, 2022).
- Regular training conducting for the stakeholders on risk management, programme goals and governance.
- Effectively strengthen collaboration between LLDC, ODA and GLA by regular forums for aligning objectives.
SN: There is thus a need for an engaging approach that is critical to ensure the London 2012 Legacy Programme puts community long-term benefits instead of short profits to the regeneration in it. Economic regeneration using private sector involvement is still key, but such approaches often subject and put the community interests on the backburner. Training all stakeholders on a regular basis is also important in dealing with the ever-growing governance challenges and equipping everybody with updated skills. Regular forums with frequent interaction among key bodies such as ODA, GLA, and LLDC can help resolve conflicts and align their objectives. This approach will help in improving governance efficiency and ensure that the legacy goals of the movement achieve sustainable results.
Slide 17: Conclusion
- The programme has transformed successfully boosting sports participation and socio-economic development.
- The challenges of governance including delays and budget overruns revealed managing megaprojects complexity.
- Improving accountability, training, and communication are essential to enhance governance and project success in the future.
SN: Therefore, the London 2012 Olympics Legacy Programme had great potential for transformation in urban development, along with providing increased facilitation for maximum participation in games. However, critical governance issues that emerged in budget overruns and an infrastructure delivery delay highlighted the complexity involved in managing such large projects. Thus, both aspects highlight the need for appropriate communication channels and clear accountability mechanisms. These governance shortcomings need to be appropriately addressed to ensure the sustainability of these benefits and proper management of future megaprojects.
Top Assignment Samples
Slide 18: Reference List
Ashkanani, S. and Franzoi, R., (2022). ‘An overview on megaproject management systems.’ Management Matters, 19(2), pp.129-148.
Bahamid, R.A., Doh, S.I., Al-Sharafi, M.A. and Rahimi, A.R., (2020). ‘Risk factors influencing the construction projects in Yemen from expert’s perspective.’ In IOP conference series: materials science and engineering (Vol. 712, No. 1, p. 012007). IOP Publishing.
Brimicombe, A. and Li, Y., (2020). ‘Evidencing the impacts of the Olympic Games: The view from London 2012’. In Evaluating the Local Impacts of the Rio Olympics (pp. 229-250). Routledge.
Byers, T., Hayday, E. and Pappous, A.S., (2020). ‘A new conceptualization of mega sports event legacy delivery: Wicked problems and critical realist solution’. Sport management review, 23(2), pp.171-182.
Caplan, R. and Gillespie, T., (2020). ‘Tiered governance and demonetization: The shifting terms of labor and compensation in the platform economy’. Social media+ Society, 6(2), p.2056305120936636.
Essex, S. and Latuf de Oliveira Sanchez, R., (2024). ‘The achievement of sustainability and legacies by the host cities of the Summer Olympiads, 2012–2024’. Planning Perspectives, 39(3), pp.595-613.
Flyvbjerg, B., Budzier, A. and Lunn, D., (2021). ‘Regression to the tail: Why the Olympics blow up’. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 53(2), pp.233-260.
Gardner, J., (2020). ‘Competing for the past: the London 2012 Olympic Games, archaeology and the ‘wasteland’’. In Critical perspectives on cultural memory and heritage (pp. 45-66). UCL Press.
Gov. uk, (2024), Inspired by 2012: The legacy of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/olympic-and-paralympic-legacy-inspired-by-2012-fourth-annual-report [Accessed on 19th September 2024]
Kokolakakis, T. and Lera-Lopez, F., (2020). ‘Sport promotion through sport mega-events. An analysis for types of olympic sports in London 2012’. International journal of environmental research and public health, 17(17), p.6193.
Lovett, E., Bloyce, D. and Smith, A., (2020). ‘Delivering a sports participation legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games: evidence from sport development workers in Birmingham and their experiences of a double-bind.’ Leisure Studies, 39(5), pp.659-672.
Olympics.com, (2024), London 2012 Legacy, Available at: https://olympics.com/ioc/legacy/living-legacy/london-2012, [Accessed on 19th September 2024]
Postlethwaite, V., Kohe, G.Z. and Molnar, G., (2020). ‘Inspiring a generation: An examination of stakeholder relations in the context of London 2012 Olympics and Paralympics educational programmes.’ In Creating and Managing a Sustainable Sporting Future (pp. 137-153). Routledge.
Queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk, (2024) , Images and Video, Available at: https://www.queenelizabetholympicpark.co.uk/media/images-and-video, [Accessed on 19th September 2024]
researchgate.net (2020) stakeholder’s network in the olympic governance system. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/stakeholders-network-in-the-olympic-governance-system_fig2_353700095. (Accessed: 19 September 2024).
Shipway, R., Lockstone-Binney, L., Holmes, K. and Smith, K.A., (2020). ‘Perspectives on the volunteering legacy of the London 2012 Olympic Games: The development of an event legacy stakeholder engagement matrix’. Event management, 24(5), pp.645-659.
Smith, A. and McGillivray, D., (2022). ‘The long-term implications of mega-event projects for urban public spaces’. Sport in Society, 25(10), pp.2107-2123.
statista.com (2024) Budget of London 2012 Summer Olympic Games, by matter of expense. Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/280396/london-2012-summer-olympic-games-budget-by-matter-of-expense/. (Accessed: 19 September 2024).
Statista.com, (2024), London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympics: travel spending from Europe, by country (in million GBP), Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/290191/london-uk-olympic-games-and-paralympics-european-travel-spending/, [Accessed on 19th September 2024]
Theguardian.com, (2024), ‘A massive betrayal’: how London’s Olympic legacy was sold out, Available at: https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jun/30/a-massive-betrayal-how-londons-olympic-legacy-was-sold-out, [Accessed on 19th September 2024]
Whannel, G., (2021). ‘The Olympic Games and the Problems of Legacy: The London Stadium Story’. Journal of Olympic Studies, 2(1), pp.29-52.