University Report: In-depth Analysis of the 2012 London Olympic Games

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the 2012 London Olympic Games, examining various aspects of the event's planning and execution. The introduction highlights the announcement of London as the host city and provides background information on the scale of the project, including the involvement of numerous athletes, officials, and construction workers. It also addresses the historical context of large-scale projects undertaken by the British government, including past failures. The report then delves into the Olympic Park's development, emphasizing the extensive remediation efforts required to transform a contaminated site into a suitable venue. A detailed overview of the stadium's specifications and construction is included. Furthermore, the report discusses the project's success, highlighting its role as a blueprint for major event planning, and the importance of stakeholder collaboration. The report also conducts a risk analysis, identifying potential drawbacks such as overspending, delays, and security failures, and details the geopolitical and financial risks. The report includes a risk table and a stakeholder analysis, providing valuable insights into the project's complexities and the roles of various stakeholders. Finally, the report provides references to support the findings and analysis.

Running head: 2012 OLYMPIC GAMES
2012 OLYMPIC GAMES
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

12012 OLYMPIC GAMES
Table of Contents
Introduction:....................................................................................................................................2
Background:.....................................................................................................................................2
Risk Analysis...................................................................................................................................3
Risk table:........................................................................................................................................4
Stakeholders:....................................................................................................................................6
Reference:........................................................................................................................................7

22012 OLYMPIC GAMES
Introduction:
International Olympic committee (IOC) on July 6, 2005 announced to the world that
2012 Olympics games will be hosted by London. 17,000 athletes and officials are involved
which are separated by 11 department and 2000 construction worker was employed to cover an
area of 600 hectares. The British government has a history of failed large scale project.
Recently, they were in highlights for the failure of the Dome which was built for celebrating
millennium. Other failed project include the Scottish parliament building, Airbus A380 and
Wembly stadium (Vanhegan et al. 2013). The Olympic venues are also constructed by the same
construction company who were responsible for the failure of the Wembly stadium.
Background:
The Olympic park was a 2.5 kilometer site which was suffered from several years of
negligence, contamination and pollution and used as a dumping place for garbage by local
residents and business. The water quality was also poor in this area. More than 1.4 million tons
of contaminated soil was shook and sieved by a special 50 ton machine.
The Stadium information is followed:
Cover more than 40 acres 5x size of house of parliament
53 meters long Higher than nelson’s column
Roof size 24.5m2 Equivalent to the three and half football
pitches
10,000 tons of steel The lightest stadium ever
2000 construction worker

32012 OLYMPIC GAMES
55,000 seats to be removed from the top tier
80,000 seating capacity
800,000 tons of soil removed Royal Albert Hall can be filled 9 times
. The whole project can be define as a huge success and also able to become a milestone
for others. Most of the people argued that investigating 9.3 billion euro in a key sporting event
was not most operational way to convert the material of grassroots sport in the UK. The success
achieved at the London has become more vivid and clear over the past year that provides an
optimal blueprint for delivering and planning major events worldwide (Schroeder et al. 2013).
The authorities were able to provide a rich game-time environment which was even enhanced
more by city excitement, social inclusion and extensive community participation. They learns
from previous Olympic games through the IOC’s transfer of knowledge programs where
thousands of the information associated with the planning and possible challenges are described.
According to the publish report, they brings both stakeholders and partners together to help the
authorities and wider stakeholders to make the tough decisions. Aligning everyone behind a
concise and clear vision enabled the authorities to create a game propositions that is useful to
connect with several people.
Risk Analysis
One of the main drawback of the London games is over cost. Due to the lack of effective
project plan, the cost management was a total failure. It was estimated that the total cost of
staging the games is 2.37 billion euro. However in reality, the cost investment was over the
expectation. London Development Agency, Presently with the National Lottery and funding
sources of Council Tax and counted nearly 500 million euro operating loss (Needleman et al.

42012 OLYMPIC GAMES
2013). Even though. They gain a huge amount of profits from the tourism department,
quantifying this can be very hard. Other than that, the main tube of St. Pancreas areas has seen
delays and long lines due to the overexcited crowd. There are other problems such as lack of
long term jobs, business migration and security failures.
After analyzing the strategic planning, several risks are identified. Many of the major
venues were completed ahead of schedule that create complexity in the work schedule
(McCloskey et al. 2014). Most high valued risks are followed:
Geopolitical risks Financial risks Risk as an organizing concept Promotion and
protection of the
Olympic brand
 Private funding would come with additional necessities that might not be acceptable
 Some Deal might be difficult to finalize
 Venues and infrastructure are in areas of changing topography
 sewers, roads, New bridges utilities connecting to Venues
 High number of interfaces and complexity
 Developer deals proposed to fund the IBC/MPC and Athletes Village
Risk table:
Very Low Low Medium High Very high

52012 OLYMPIC GAMES
2007 2008 2009 2010
Governance
Vacant possession
planning
Work adjacent to the railways
Developer Findings-IBC and village
Logistics Capability
Design and Construction Integration
Change to security requirements
Late design changes from stakeholders
Late completion of the athlete village
Legacy Design
Environmental, H&S incidents on site
Industrial disputes
Impacts of the LOCOG overlay program me
Contractor insolvency
Post completion
Transport-TDM/ORN
Major Asset Loss

62012 OLYMPIC GAMES
Stakeholders:
Stakeholders Associates with the Olympic board
Source: (Engebretsen et al. 2013)
Stakeholders plays a vital role in the project execution and completeness (Brown, Smith and
Assaker 2016). The stakeholders map has been shown above with the main stakeholders who are
associates with the London games and Olympic board. From the London, there were mainly two
stakeholders greater London Authority and British Olympic association. From the Olympic

72012 OLYMPIC GAMES
board, there is government Olympic executive who is responsible for the whole execution
process.

82012 OLYMPIC GAMES
Reference:
Brown, G., Smith, A. and Assaker, G., 2016. Revisiting the host city: An empirical examination
of sport involvement, place attachment, event satisfaction and spectator intentions at the London
Olympics. Tourism management, 55, pp.160-172.
Engebretsen, L., Soligard, T., Steffen, K., Alonso, J.M., Aubry, M., Budgett, R., Dvorak, J.,
Jegathesan, M., Meeuwisse, W.H., Mountjoy, M. and Palmer-Green, D., 2013. Sports injuries
and illnesses during the London Summer Olympic Games 2012. Br J Sports Med, 47(7), pp.407-
414.
McCloskey, B., Endericks, T., Catchpole, M., Zambon, M., McLauchlin, J., Shetty, N., Manuel,
R., Turbitt, D., Smith, G., Crook, P. and Severi, E., 2014. London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic
Games: public health surveillance and epidemiology. The lancet, 383(9934), pp.2083-2089.
Needleman, I., Ashley, P., Petrie, A., Fortune, F., Turner, W., Jones, J., Niggli, J., Engebretsen,
L., Budgett, R., Donos, N. and Clough, T., 2013. Oral health and impact on performance of
athletes participating in the London 2012 Olympic Games: a cross-sectional study. Br J Sports
Med, pp.bjsports-2013.
Schroeder, A., Pennington-Gray, L., Kaplanidou, K. and Zhan, F., 2013. Destination risk
perceptions among US residents for London as the host city of the 2012 Summer Olympic
Games. Tourism Management, 38, pp.107-119.
Vanhegan, I.S., Palmer-Green, D., Soligard, T., Steffen, K., O'connor, P., Bethapudi, S., Budgett,
R., Haddad, F.S. and Engebretsen, L., 2013. The London 2012 Summer Olympic Games: an
analysis of usage of the Olympic Village ‘Polyclinic’by competing athletes. Br J Sports Med,
pp.bjsports-2013.

92012 OLYMPIC GAMES