Interview | Sir John Armitt
millions of jobs. In this article I will draw on the lessons I have learnt which I believe can help us to be successful. My experience has led me to the clear conclusion that the most important player is the client. I would define the client as the body that has the need for the project, owns the vision, determines the objectives of the project and takes the financial risk of delivery and operation.
Designers, contractors and
funders can all support the client in bringing clarity to the definition of the project. Uncertainty, ambiguity, a desire to move quickly, poor risk assessment and a focus on the short term are all weaknesses that can mean failure of the project. The starting point therefore must be clear governance. The most recent project success in the UK was the delivery of the London 2012 Olympic Games. The right to host the Games is awarded by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) 7 years in advance. In London we therefore adopted an approach of 2 years planning, 4 years building and the last year for the temporary overlay and trial events. The concept of hosting the Games can be split into two parts, building the theatre and putting on the show. For London organisation and financing was also split. For
SIR JOHN ARMITT
l Sir John Armitt became Chairman of the Olympic Delivery Authority on 1 September 2007. He is also Chairman of National Express Group, City and Guilds and is Deputy Chairman of the Berkeley Group. Sir John is also a member of the Board of Transport for London and the Airports Commission. In September 2013 the Armitt Review was published. In 1993 he joined Union Railways, the company responsible for development of the high-speed Channel Tunnel Rail Link, as Chief Executive. In 1997 he became Chief Executive of Costain. Sir John was Chief Executive of Railtrack plc from 2001 and Chief Executive of Network Rail from 2002 to 2007. He was Chairman of the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council until March 2012. Sir John was awarded the CBE in 1996 for his contribution to the rail industry and received a knighthood in the New Year Honours List 2012.
global-opportunity.co.uk
‘Record numbers of passengers were successfully moved in London during the Games with over four million in a day on the London Underground and all 10,000 athletes and officials arrived for the various competitions on time.’
the building and infrastructure works a new public sector body the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) was created with funding from Government.
An early challenge was that the
budget for London’s bid to the IOC had been severely underestimated. So it had to be reviewed, although the resulting £8bn for construction included a £2bn contingency that allowed for better decision- making. The budget for putting on the show, including opening and closing ceremonies, was £2bn which reflected income from ticket sales, sponsorship and TV rights. The government allowed another £1 billion for security and other costs. A key issue for a client at the onset of developing a project is to determine key values. For an Olympic Games the key value is time. Inevitably the next is cost. In London, to offset public criticism of spending, a key value became legacy. Other values were safety, environment, diversity and training. Earlier I referred to the importance of the overriding governance structure. The final client is the IOC who together with the various sports governing bodies set the specifications for each sport. In London’s case, London Organising Committee for the Olympic Games (LOCOG) was chaired by Lord Coe. The British Government had signed letters of guarantee to the IOC assuring them that it would deliver the 2012 Games regardless of cost. The Greater London Authority led by the Mayor of London was providing £1bn. The British Olympic athletes were led
by the British Olympic Association chaired by Lord Moynihan. An Olympic Board to oversee the London Games was set up consisting of Government Ministers from DCMS, the Mayor of London, Lord Moynihan and Lord Coe. LOCOG was effectively the client for the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) of DCMS (Department of Culture, Media & Sport). For the ODA an early decision was whether it could build an organisation capable of fulfilling all the client oversight roles for the delivery of £8bn of construction works or whether it would need help. The conclusion was to seek help and a Delivery Partner was appointed. It was a joint venture of CH2M Hill (America), Laing O’Rourke (UK) and Mace (UK). At the start of any individual
project or programme I believe there are three simple questions which must be addressed, why, what and how? The Governance, the funding, the contractual structures are all part of how. At the highest level the ‘why’ was simple, London had decided to bid and then entered into an agreement with the IOC to host the 2012 Games.
For the ODA ‘why’ referred to
why did we need to build at all, could we not just use existing facilities? If we had to build, the Legacy value became a factor. What would happen to the facility after the Games? The result was that we built temporary venues such as the 12,000 seat basketball area, 5,000 seat water polo arena and the 16,000 seat Hockey stadium. Our most difficult case was the main stadium. For the Games it needed 80,000 seats, but we knew other cities had struggled to make use of their stadium post Games. Our solution was to build a demountable stadium with 80,000 capacity for the Games which could be reduced to a 25,000 seat athletics stadium, a legacy commitment made to the IOC. Similarly the Zaha Hadid Aquatics centre had two temporary wings which increased capacity to 17,500 for the Games whilst the core building seating 2,500 became the post-Games facility. The 2008 financial crisis meant that the private sector approach to funding the Athletes Village of
ISSUE 01 | GLOBAL OPPORTUNITY 2014 125
t
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200