2. Q1. What is a vision? How does London 2012 vision go beyond
simply organizing the weeks of the Olympics and Paralympics
games?
VISION
A vision is an idealized picture of what is to be achieved.
LONDON 2012 VISION : to use the power of the Games to inspire
change
1. Programs related to culture,education,environment
2. Business opportunities
3. Accessible to every one
4. Promoting values friendship,respect,equality,etc.
3. Q2. How does the values of London 2012 helps to
achieve its vision?
• How employees should behave
at their work
• Using democratic style of
management
• Anyone can join LOCOG
• Which business it will work
Values
Inspiration
Open
Respectful
Team
Deliver
Distinctive
4. Q3. Outline the 5 stages of design thinking on London's 2012
vision.
1. Empathize:
a)Conduct interviews, surveys, and observations to gather insights into their needs, expectations, and concerns of
athletes & local community.
b)Explore the needs of the local community and how the event can positively impact their lives.
2. Define:
a)Prioritize key issues, such as infrastructure development, sustainability& community engagement.
b)Identify areas where innovation and improvement can make a significant impact.
3. Ideate:
Consider innovative approaches to infrastructure development, sustainability, and community
engagement like involving private sector , sponsorships, job opportunities, Tv & media campaigns.
4. Prototype:
a)Develop physical or virtual prototypes for key infrastructure projects, ensuring they align with
sustainability goals.
b)Tv & Media campaign to engage local community
c)Get set website to educate young people
5. Test:
Implement small-scale pilot programs for selected initiatives to assess their viability.
5. Q4. Design a SWOT analysis on London 2012 vision.
STRENGTHS
1. Values
2. Vision
3. Employees
4. Inclusion
WEAKNESS
1. Investment
OPPORTUNITIES
1. Global Event
2. Tourism
3. Business Opportunities
THREATS
1. Weather
6. Q5. In what ways objectives set out for London 2012 Olympics SMART?
"Deliver the Olympic Park and all venues on time, to specification, and providing for
a sustainable legacy"
1. Specific:
• The objective is specific in terms of delivering the Olympic Park and venues.
2.Measurable:
• Measurement criteria include the timely completion of the Olympic Park and venues,
adherence to specifications, and the establishment of sustainability measures.
3.Agreed:
• The objective is agreed as it outlines clear deliverables within the scope of the
organizers' control.
4.Realistic:
• It aligns with the broader goals of hosting a successful event, meeting international
standards, and leaving a positive and lasting legacy for the host city.
5.Time-Related:
• It sets a specific timeframe for the completion of the Olympic Park and venues,
ensuring that they are ready for use during the scheduled Olympic Games.
7. • London competed with other cities to host the 2012 Olympics. It was chosen from nine cities, with five shortlisted to make formal bids (Paris, Madrid,
Moscow, London, and New York). London won the final round, beating Paris by 54 votes to 50.
• It seems likely that there was a political influence in the decision – such as the French president insulting the Finnish delegation by complaining about
the quality of Finnish food. However, the criteria of the IOC included government support and public opinion, city infrastructure (such as transport),
sports venues and experience, olympic village and accommodation, environmental impact and legacy, safety and security, and finance. The following
factors were partly responsible for the success of the bid:
• Youth engagement in sport was one of the pillars of London’s bit
• Sustainability and ‘legacy’ were pillars of London’s bid
• Regeneration was emphasised as part of the bid: the IOC was shown photos of the derelict former industrial areas
• The UK government had decided to focus its Olympic bids on London after failing to win the Games in 1992, 1996 and 2000 with bids from
Birmingham and Manchester (two other major UK cities)
• Gender and age issues: most of those who spoke in the Paris presentation were male and middle aged; the London presentation included children
and represented a multicultural London
• Financial: the British government was ready to back any over-spend on the construction of Games facilities. The initial estimate of GBP2.2bn was
totally wrong and the games eventually cost around GBP10bn!
• A further issue was the very local focus of London’s bid. Rather than being simply shown as a city- or country-wide bid, it suggested that the Olympics
would have a lasting tangible impact on a deprived area of London, called Stratford.
• The choice of Stratford in London
• The area chosen for the main Olympic facilities was a relatively deprived part of London:
8.
9. The area was therefore identifiably in need of regeneration and expected to benefit from improvements to infrastructure that would mean:
• Location of main venue just seven minutes by train from Central London
• London’s bid was one of the most compact Olympic Parks – only about 2 ½ square kilometres, so minimal impact on land use in the area
• Sizeable available brownfield sites for redevelopment, as well as the green spaces of the Lower Lea Valley, so there would be opportunity
for further growth
• Development of a major transport hub in the form of Stratford International Station
• The athlete’s village was planned to be converted into 2818 new homes, of which about 40% would be ‘affordable’ homes for low and
middle income families and disabled people
• Emphasis on urban regeneration: the swimming pools were planned for conversion into public pools after the Games
• Suitable location for further post-Games industry e.g. the media centre, where 20,000 people worked during the Games, was planned for
conversion into one of Europe’s largest data storage centres.
The costs and benefits of hosting the Games:
• Whether the Games were cost-effective depends very much on the perspective of the individual. Socially there were many benefits (see
below) but these were not always long-lived, and participation in sport has now returned to pre-2012 levels. Economically, the Games
occurred during the recovery from the global financial crisis of 2008-10, and many people felt that the approximate cost of GBP10bn to be
too high, despite the lasting benefits to the environment and the future of the economy. Over the total period of the Olympics, some
sources suggest “the city brought in around US$3.5 billion in revenues, and spent in excess US$18 billion – a negative balance of $14 billion
plus” (Zimbalist, 2015).
• However, many people feel that the London Games were overall a success, and provided a benefit to the city. It should be remembered that
London is already the world’s second most globalised city (Dessibourg, Hales, and Mendoza Peña, 2017) and has been in that position since
the index began in 2008. London has great wealth and experience in putting on large events and is used to welcoming visitors from around
the world, so it was organisationally capable of running the Olympics. Other cities have fared less well with the legacy of such complex and
expensive events.
