Abstracts of Conference Papers: TSBE EngD Conference, TSBE Centre, University of Reading, Whiteknights, RG6 6AF, 5th July 2011. http://www.reading.ac.uk/tsbe/

Methods Used For Sustainable Management Of Time, Cost And Quality Throughout The London 2012 Olympic And Paralympic Programme Interim Findings Using A Scoping Study J. M. Grossman1*, M. Radosavljevic2, S. Peace3, L. Warne3 1

Technologies for Sustainable Built Environments, University of Reading, United Kingdom 2 School of Construction Management and Engineering, University of Reading, United Kingdom 3 Chartered Institute of Building, Englemere, Kings Ride, Ascot, Berkshire * Corresponding author: [email protected]

ABSTRACT The London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games Programme (the Games) is currently live, providing an opportunity to obtain first-hand knowledge of large-scale programme management. The programme has promised to deliver the most sustainable games ever. This provides a unique opportunity to capture lessons learned on delivering a programme of this size, on time and within budget, whilst ensuring the sustainable targets are met. Where feasible, these lessons can then be taken forward to all future programmes, including future Olympic Games. This paper aims to comment on the processes used across the programme to manage time, cost and quality. This is based on interim findings from the analysis of information already available and semi-structured interviews. This will integrate within the development of a new Chartered Institute of Building (CIOB) Code of Practice for Programme Management which aims to improve the understanding of this practice within the industry. Keywords: Time, cost, quality, sustainability, programmes

1. INTRODUCTION The construction sector rarely witnesses a programme of such a scale with such high expectations. It has promised to be the most sustainable games ever, taking in to account all aspects from construction to waste and resource management (London 2012, 2009a). The main aim of this paper is to gauge the lessons learned from the management of this programme with regards to meeting the strict targets to the required time scale, budget and quality finish. As research is still ongoing, the paper meets this aim by focusing on the analysis of interim results from a scoping study and examining existing information. The focus of the study is on the methods used for the management of time, cost and quality and how sustainability affected these decisions. The results will then be used as comparable data for future research that will investigate other large programmes for the CIOB CoP. The methods used to research this data will have to be consistent, reliable and justified providing the baseline of the investigation for comparison with future programmes. The Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) is the public body responsible for developing and building the new venues and infrastructure for the Games and their use after 2012. They will play a vital role in meeting the ambitious aim in providing ‘the most sustainable games ever’. The ODA are working together with the consortium CLM in order to deliver a successful 1

Abstracts of Conference Papers: TSBE EngD Conference, TSBE Centre, University of Reading, Whiteknights, RG6 6AF, 5th July 2011. http://www.reading.ac.uk/tsbe/

Olympic Games. CLM are made up of CH2M Hill, Laing O’Rourke, and Mace and were appointed the ODA’s delivery partner, putting into practice a relatively new concept. The ODA and CLM want to improve methods in achieving higher levels of sustainability and therefore how cities will host future Olympic Games. These include the employment of local labour, regeneration of Stratford and building structures with their future as important as their primary use (London 2012, 2009a). Therefore it is an ideal programme to investigate lessons learned with regards to the management of time, cost and quality especially as the programme is still live. It allows in-depth research into each aspect from the perspective of employees working within the programme and lessons can be taken forward to programmes of all sizes. As mentioned, London 2012 has stringent sustainability targets to meet before its immoveable deadline. Not only will this benefit the local area after the games, it also goes further in contributing to the long term government aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by the year 2050 (DECC, 2008). It is benefiting the industry by providing the workforce with skills to meet such sustainable ambitions and giving them an awareness and resonance with why this is important. To take these lessons into the wider industry research is vital, as sustainability is becoming increasingly significant to the relative success of a construction programme (OGC, 2009a). Considering sustainability ensures a programme will provide for the present without compromising the needs of the future. Sustainable management synthesises sustainability into every management decision within a programme be it environmental, social or economic. It is essential that delivery of a programme is within the time specified, under budget and to a high quality whilst improving the sustainability of operations and helping to reduce carbon emissions (OGC, 2009b). Programme management is a relatively new approach within the construction industry. A programme can be defined as a collection of smaller projects and programme management can be defined as an effective way to manage cost, time and quality across the projects (Lycett et al, 2004). Understanding of the challenges that come with its implementation and practice remain vague. During implementation there can be a lack of awareness and during practice there can be a lack of commitment (Shehu and Akintoye, 2009a). 2. METHOD 2.1 Selection of Method A number of methodologies were considered in the approach to this research. The key concern was to ensure that the data collected would provide reliable information to be able to perform a comparative analysis with other programmes for the CoP. In order to provide a clear basis for the comparative analysis with other programmes, there has to be consistency across all methods. Due to the nature of the project there was a lot of existing information. This information may be hard to generalise and there is no guarantee that any particular method explained in the documentation was exactly how a task was performed (Raferty et al, 1997). Survey was considered as one alternative approach but it was ruled out due to time constraints and fears that a sample from the first study would not equivalently represent the programme against samples from other programmes. Surveyed individuals who are sent questionnaires can spend time thinking through the answers, revisiting the questions and thus additionally biasing results. Questionnaire surveys encourage a reductionist approach that will inevitably distance the interviewee from the question. Another alternative, a semi2

Abstracts of Conference Papers: TSBE EngD Conference, TSBE Centre, University of Reading, Whiteknights, RG6 6AF, 5th July 2011. http://www.reading.ac.uk/tsbe/

structured interview, brings forward its own issues; these are the accuracy of their answers and the comparison of their answers with the truth. It is often suggested the interviewee is focused more on self-presentation and persuasion rather than the facts. It is for this reason that collecting data from different sources is essential in confirming the validity of the results (Dainty, n.d.). The main criteria related to the trustworthiness of individual sets of qualitative research are credulity, dependability, transferability and confirmability (Raftery et al, 1997). Therefore, also considering the time available, semi-structured interviews were considered the best empirical method; these can then be contrasted with the available published information. The interviewees should not know the questions beforehand in an attempt to gain an honest response with no pre-determined views. The questions asked are identical so the results can be used as comparable data across the whole programme and down the supply chain. Moving down the supply chain, tier 1 suppliers have the contracting relationship with the ODA; tier 2 contractors have the contracting relationship with tier 1 contractors and so on. 2.2 Questionnaires and Available Information There is a great deal of information available on the programme ranging from quarterly programme reviews to in-depth project briefs. The interview questionnaire asks questions based on the methods used to manage time, cost and quality, working relationships, health and safety and defect management. By covering each of these sections, each question contributes towards the management of time, cost and quality and how sustainability affected decisions. An example of this includes previous working relationships and how this was incorporated into the management of each project. Interviews took place at programme level and are continuing across different tiers of four individual projects. A perspective across different tiers aims to give realistic views of how successful the intended methods were across the programme. Interviews are structured on the questionnaire; however the overall structure ultimately depends on response of the interviewee. Keeping to a closed interview does not allow for further detail that might be essential to the programme. Analysis of documentation available on the Games showed that the programme was heavily based around a document known as the Programme Baseline Report, which was published in 2007 after the Olympics were awarded to London. The original Baseline Report focuses on all aspects of the programme including the fundamental scope, schedule of works, cost and budget and risk for the entire ODA programme. The Baseline Report was updated in 2010 to take account of changes that have occurred and create a structure that should see the Games through to completion and legacy. The majority of the other documents help in describing how the programme should progress to achieve successful and timely completion. 2.3 Interviews Interviews were planned for approximately 6 professional profiles across different tiers within the Olympic Stadium, the Olympic Village, the Main Press Centre (MPC) and the International Broadcast Centre (IBC) and Structures, Bridges and Highways (SBH). Figure 19 shows the diverse selection of positions chosen for interviewing. On completion of each interview, detailed notes have been written up ready for interpretation and cross-analysis.

3

Abstracts of Conference Papers: TSBE EngD Conference, TSBE Centre, University of Reading, Whiteknights, RG6 6AF, 5th July 2011. http://www.reading.ac.uk/tsbe/

•

Project Manager from each T1

•

Equivalents from significant Sub Contractor (Mechanical/Electrical/Building)

•

Key suppliers

•

At least 2 Designers (1 Architectural/1 Engineering)

•

Foreman

•

Programme Level Manager

Figure 1 - Positions to interview Interviewing across the programme gives varying insight into what actually happened with regards to time, cost and quality across different tiers. The Olympic Stadium was selected because it was completed ahead of schedule and under budget (London 2012, 2011). The Olympic Village and MPC/IBC were selected in order to assess how the programme adapted to include these projects after they could no longer be privately funded as was originally planned (London 2012, 2009b). Unfortunately time and availability constraints have often meant that the profiles shown in figure 1 have been adapted where necessary, however, interviews were conducted as close to the selected positions as possible. At the time of writing, 16 interviews have taken place with various professionals throughout the programme within 3 different projects across different tiers. These include the Olympic Stadium, the Olympic Village and the MPC and IBC. Recordings were taken throughout each interview following the approval from each interviewee. The method has so far been successful in accomplishing the aim set forth by this paper. The interviews have produced a range of answers across different projects and across the different tiers. It must be noted there are further interviews to take place across the Olympic Village and SBH (structures, bridges and highways) which will then contribute to later analysis. 3. ANALYSIS The analysis is based on a discussion of the answers from the interviews and available literature from which a list of conclusions will be based on. 3.1 Time, cost and quality as a whole Taking the management of time, cost and quality as a whole, there are a host of methods that ensure high standards are maintained and could be made compulsory in future programmes. 3.1.1 Benchmarking Benchmarking is widely used as a key element to achieve success across all tiers. The benchmark for environmental management across the site was based on the number of incidents per hours worked on the Olympic Park construction site. This was known as the Significant Environment Incident Frequency Rate (SEIFR). It has been suggested that benchmarking is used to improve efficiency and allow for company comparison and improvement (OGC, 2008). This view is agreed across the programme as answers from the interviews explain that benchmarking contributes to minimal defects and ensures that the requirements are clear. If possible, creating a full scale mock-up will reduce quality issues. A 4

Abstracts of Conference Papers: TSBE EngD Conference, TSBE Centre, University of Reading, Whiteknights, RG6 6AF, 5th July 2011. http://www.reading.ac.uk/tsbe/

big issue that causes defects, delays and additions to cost and time is simply the misunderstanding of what is actually required.

3.1.2 Integration It is agreed across the programme that CLM have effectively come together as unit and the appointment of a delivery partner has been successful. Working effectively with the ODA has been a key element to the success of the programme so far. Previous studies have shown that if projects are set up individually and procured separately, as the Olympic venues were, each project may not have to rely on others as much as in other construction programmes reducing knowledge sharing (Lycett et al, 2004). However, project integration within a programme can prove a key factor in communication (OGC, 2009b). Resource sharing between projects increases knowledge sharing and therefore can reduce time and cost and increase quality (Shehu and Akintoye, 2009b). Due to spatial constraints of being on a large programme, project integration was affected, and interviews demonstrate there was a lack of knowledge sharing between projects at construction team level. Integration across the programme certainly increased as the programme progressed through various initiatives including awards and visits to other venues. 3.1.3 Incentives Interview answers also explain that incentives increase productivity. These include contractor financial rewards for meeting milestones (NAO, 2008) or the Olympic badge scheme. Each badge design is based on individual projects and supply is very limited. With the reward of a badge comes a great deal of respect from people within and outside the programme. 3.1.4 Relationships Managing working relationships can also contribute to the relative success of a programme (Shehu and Akintoye, 2009a). Some companies were selected following their previous work on Olympic and Paralympic Games (London 2012, 2006). Discussion at programme level suggested that a combination of experienced and new up and coming professionals/companies that are looking to prove their worth within the industry should be achieved in order to ensure acceptable levels of leniency in managing time, cost and quality. There are fears complacency can creep in if companies or individual professionals have worked together many times previously. Creating the ideal working relationship based on mutual trust, communication and openness will increase the potential for success (OGC, 2009c). 3.2 Time Preparation for the Games is based on a 2-4-1 timeline for overall structure and internal and external communication. In essence, it took two years to plan, four years to build and will take one year to commission. The timing for this programme is unprecedented as the end date in immoveable. An example of failure to deal with this difficulty is the recent Commonwealth Games in India. There was a great deal of controversy in the build up to the games as venues were not ready, the Athletics Village was not complete and athletes decided to pull out owing to fears their safety was at risk (BBC, 2010). Following interviews at programme level, there seems to be no doubt that not only will all venues be completed on 5

Abstracts of Conference Papers: TSBE EngD Conference, TSBE Centre, University of Reading, Whiteknights, RG6 6AF, 5th July 2011. http://www.reading.ac.uk/tsbe/

time, but they will be ready to hand over to LOCOG (The London Organising Committee of the Olympic and Paralympic Games) a year in advance as planned ready for testing and safety inspections. If possible, starting a project in advance of the agreed programme date is also advised. Risks can be managed with respect to the time constraint. Regular milestones must be met and regular meetings held to ensure projects are on schedule or investigate as to why they might not be. Due to the various layers of management any early fears that communication across the tiers would take time were eliminated as regular meetings were organised between programme management and contractors to enhance communication between tiers. 3.3 Cost Cost across the whole programme was very closely scrutinised at every opportunity. Every alteration had to be justified and change could only occur if it was approved by the relevant internal management authority. Managers were given the ability to approve change up to specific values however if the change required was valued higher it would have to go through a change board. Change board required approval from all management minimising any unnecessary cost. Contingency within the programme was only called upon if necessary but potential risks to the programme were covered by this contingency (London 2012, 2009). Even though the Olympic Village suffered from funding issues which then required public sector intervention, the contingency could still account for necessary risks (Webb, 2009). Alongside health and safety, maintaining cost within the budget takes a leading role in the success of the programme since money can only be spent when necessary to improve quality or complete a task to the required standard. From the financial perspective, the programme was broken down into individual projects and measured against the available budget. This differs from other construction programmes where cost in many cases is based around high levels of resource sharing (Shehu and Akintoye, 2009b). Costs across the programme are typically reviewed weekly to minimise unnecessary expenditure and keep the projects within the specified budget. A technique known as ‘Earned Value’ combines cost and time models into a single model that allows monitoring of time and cost in the same breath. It aims to encourage change based on opportunity or availability of resources however the importance and relevance. There is a general understanding that increasing resources early at extra cost will reduce problems at a later date (OGC, n.d.). 3.4 Quality 3.4.1 Creating a Suitable Working Environment Interviewees agree that the culture surrounding the Games is one that involves everybody in the programme and not just the management. The Olympic Park and surrounding areas are dotted with poster campaigns creating an inclusive environment that constantly encourages the workers that they are part of “The Greatest Show on Earth” and pride is on the line. A programme of such global recognition is not a standard representation of a construction programme but the method used to create a suitable working environment can be appropriately modified and reapplied in future programmes. Quality was encouraged through immense engagement and increased mutual respect between all tiers based on showing and not telling (i.e. leading by example). Simple methods such as this were appreciated by the workforce. There are monitoring procedures across the 6

Abstracts of Conference Papers: TSBE EngD Conference, TSBE Centre, University of Reading, Whiteknights, RG6 6AF, 5th July 2011. http://www.reading.ac.uk/tsbe/

programme to investigate quality and allow for discussion of any particular problems. These include quality meetings, random daily checks and quality inspection forms. It is understood that within individual projects, quality management often requires additional resources due to integration and reliance on others. Tasks can rely on the completion of previous tasks and, similar to the domino effect, if a task is not completed to an acceptable level, it can have a knock-on effect that can compromise quality. Successful projects should integrate with respect to procurement, understanding exact requirements and risk assessment (NAO/OGC, n.d.) whilst a specific focus on quality should commence from the beginning. 3.4.2 Sustainability Within As previously explained, one of the main outcomes of the Games is the delivery of a sustainable programme. There is an overarching sustainability strategy, which has specific targets cascaded into all the contracts. Such a promise has been reinforced by a high quality waste management system, the regeneration plan of Stratford and that a substantial proportion of structures will be disassembled and re-used almost immediately after the games for legacy (London 2012, n.d.). As programmes are structured around their required outcomes, it is important quality is not negotiated for sustainability (Shehu and Akintoye, 2009b). This gives valid explanation for regular quality and sustainability meetings across the programme and within each project. 3.5 Future Work Future work will focus on completion of the interviews, further scrutiny of obtained results and further analysis of the available literature. This will include workshops that will investigate gaps in the research findings and identification of any lessons learned from the London Olympic Programme that can be transferred to future construction programmes. 4. CONCLUSIONS Answers from the interviews conducted with reference to the relevant literature have lead to the following interim conclusions: •

Benchmarking from the beginning can ensure high quality and minimal defects. Through increased benchmarking the project can prove cost effective in the long run as long as risk is managed effectively.

•

Incentives and rewards can increase productivity consistently throughout the programme. Manage trust and working relationships with relative bonuses for hitting targets and completing milestones.

•

Aim to employ a combination of trusted and experienced companies/professionals with new up and coming ones that are looking to prove their worth within the industry. Complacency should instead give space to building trustworthy relationships between companies and individuals.

•

Creating an inclusive environment within a programme can increase pride and as a result raise respect among the participating companies and workforce. In doing so, this can encourage productivity and respect to quality. It is imperative that management leads by example as opposed to dictating requirements so that the workforce understands their importance for successful completion of a project and programme. 7

Abstracts of Conference Papers: TSBE EngD Conference, TSBE Centre, University of Reading, Whiteknights, RG6 6AF, 5th July 2011. http://www.reading.ac.uk/tsbe/

•

Review cost on a weekly basis to ensure a project is making suitable progress without compromising the budget especially where change may have occurred. Ensure project integration through regular meetings with sub-contractors to discuss relevant and/or pressing issues.

•

Quality should be treated as an individual and key factor from the beginning so that it does not suffer at a later date when such considerations might seem too costly and thus neglected. Quality should not only come as a consequence of completion under budget and on time, but also meeting the scope to a high standard.

REFERENCES BBC Sport, 2010. Commonwealth Games delays in Delhi cause 'concern'. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 25 April 2011] Dainty, A. Advanced Research Methods in the Built Environment. Methodological pluralism in construction management research. Chapter 1 DECC, 2008. Climate Change Act 2008. [Online] Available [Accessed 19 April 2011]

at:

London 2012, 2006. 2012 Delivery Partner announced. [Online] Available at [Accessed 15 May 2011] London 2012, 2009a. Towards a One Planet 2012. [Online] London 2012. Available at [Accessed 01 May 2011] London 2012, 2009b. Funding decision announced for Olympic Village and media centres. [Online] Available at: < http://www.london2012.com/news/2009/01/funding-decisionannounced-for-olympic-village-and-media-centres.php> [Accessed 03 May 2011] London 2012, 2011. Construction complete on London 2012 Olympic Stadium. [Online] Available at: < http://www.london2012.com/news/2011/03/construction-complete-onlondon-2012-olympic-stadium.php> [Accessed 05 May 2011] London 2012, n.d. Legacy after the Games. [Online] Available [Accessed 05 May 2011]

at:

Lycett, M., Rassau, A., Danson, J., 2004. International Journal of Project Management. Programme management: a critical review, 22 pp. 289–299 NAO, 2008. Preparations for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games: Progress Report June 2008. Executive Summary, pp. 5 NAO/OGC n.d. Common Causes of Project Failure. [Online] Available [Accessed 29 April 2011]

at:

OGC, 2008. Benchmarking. [Online] Available at [Accessed 05 May 2011] 8

Abstracts of Conference Papers: TSBE EngD Conference, TSBE Centre, University of Reading, Whiteknights, RG6 6AF, 5th July 2011. http://www.reading.ac.uk/tsbe/

OGC, 2009a. News About the OGC. [Online] Available [Accessed 05/05/2011]

at

OGC, 2009b. Overview of Managing Successful Programmes (MSP). [Online] Available at: [Accessed 05 May 2011] OGC, 2009c. Managing relationships. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 05 May 2011] OGC, n.d. The productive time improvement journey. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 05 May 2011] Raftery, J., McGeorge, D., Walters, M., 1996. Construction Management Economics. Breaking up methodological monopolies: a multi- paradigm approach to construction management research, 15, 291 - 297 Shehu, Z., and Akintoye, A., 2009a. International Journal of Project Management. Major challenges to the successful implementation and practice of programme management in the construction environment: A critical analysis, 28 pp. 26-39 Shehu, Z., and Akintoye, A., 2009b. International Journal of Project Management. Construction programme management theory and practice: Contextual and pragmatic approach, 27 pp. 703–716 Webb, T., 2009. Olympic 2012 village seeks £225m bailout from European Investment Bank. The Guardian, 10 April 2009. [Online] Available at: [Accessed 05 May 2011]

9

Abstracts of Conference Papers: TSBE EngD Conference, TSBE Centre, University of Reading, Whiteknights, RG6 6AF, 5th July 2011. http://www.reading.ac.uk/tsbe/

10