Stakeholder Roles in UK Mega Projects

Explanation for Research Question

The Research Question: “What is the current best practice of stakeholder management for a mega project in the UK?”

Stakeholder management is all about the managing of stakeholder and the various functions performed by them in the mega project in the UK. Developing stakeholder management planning and communication is a really important phase in stakeholder management. The approach in planning and managing should be very clear to avoid misinterpretations in the management of the system. In the mega project, it comprises of various roles for stakeholder like maintaining the interest and power management grid ratio with the relationship between the different stakeholders working herein.

One should be clear with the work distribution to different stakeholder and keep in account the work in time principle as well to get rid of the last moment working and handling of the work issues. For smooth functioning of the management, there should be cordial coordination amidst the different stakeholders working on this huge project as the name suggests. Planning and execution at the professional front should be reliable and done with the utmost understanding and research work and study of the various aspects made so as to avoid any misleading in the system and management.

Activities should be allocated with expertise and responsibility should be catered and delivered with the set parameters of expectations and customer satisfaction here it is termed for the players, viewers, spectators and the general public in the town and overseas as well are associated with the broadcasting stakeholders as well. Query solving and problem diffusion are the major characteristics of the problem-solving approach in stakeholder management in mega projects to overcome the messy situations and prevent them before taking any curative measures to arise.

Stakeholder management is dependent on the key aspects as understanding the fundamentals behind success attainment in mega projects like London 2012 Olympics. It needs a whole lot of enthusiasm and quality to manage risk determinants which are made simple and easy to understand and work on. Performing the mentioned roles with functions like communication, understanding the key principles, Power interest grid, planning, risk management, compromise and compensate are the practices followed and practised in the mega project by stakeholders in the UK.

Literature Review

Introduction

This literature review comprises of the description about the stakeholders, stakeholders management, stakeholder management in Mega Project in UK Olympics 2012 London and Heathrow’s Terminal 5 respectively comparing both of the projects. Focus on strategies, working models, planning, implementation and execution by analysing risks in the project. Also, understand the key concepts of stakeholder behind success in mega project and inspiration for the stakeholders to work effectively in the given span of time with perfection and excellence.

Stakeholders

An individual or a group or may be an association of organisation or business entities showing interest in a concerned task, work allocated in an organisation. Stakeholders are associated with particular organisations with the help of policies, agreements and bonds signed on the contract basis. These Contracts can be proposed, modified and fulfilled on the observation of working of the stakeholders subjected to revise and renewal of contracts for prescribed tenures (APMBOK, 2012).

Stakeholders in this project comprises of a chain of stakeholders they are the suppliers of raw materials for infrastructure and field work, caterers, security agencies, legal advisors for incorporating the agreements signed between different stakeholders and the clients, sponsors for the event, event management companies, event managers, venue distributors, traffic controllers, employer recruiting agencies, human resource, products, sports coordinators, expert advisors, project managers and some more entities (Singh, 2016).

Stakeholder Management

Stakeholder management is the management activity undertaken to carry out the coordination and cooperation among different stakeholders of a particular project. Stakeholder management ensures a positive approach in relationship amidst different stakeholders with the understanding and approach to attain and fulfil the management objectives and goals to be met. Stakeholder management works on ten principles merely they can be called as the functions of the stakeholders to be managed and delivered with perfection and quality assurance (Bradley, 2010). Stakeholder management is a simple activity management process with less disturbance and interference of risk and problems. Design and framework of responsibilities at different levels of working can be allied, relied and substituted according to the needs and requirements in the project with mere understanding and control features (Burke, 2011).

Stakeholder’s Management in Mega Project in the UK

Stakeholder Identification

It the initial step in managing the stakeholders in mega projects especially. Accurate planning and communication management is the desired resource for an organisation’s effective management tool. Setting up inspirational examples, role models and ideal for the working structure is important and plays a positive impact on the stakeholders to work for an organisation with 3D’s: dedication, determination and decision making.

Stakeholders at Priority

Interested people with High power are the people or group of people whom one should make enormous efforts to satisfy their demands and need.

Less Interested people with High power are the people put with enough work to satisfy with a restricted zone of message conveyance. Adequate information is enough and need not be interpreted from time to time frequently.

Interested people with the lowest power are the people need to be kept informed with ample information ensuring them that there are no major problems and faults in the system. People can prove helpful with the details of your project management.

Less Interested people with the lowest power are the people with minimum interest, and minimum communication required those are not too frequent (Cleland and Ireland, 2006).

Understanding Your Key Stakeholders Management and Engagement

There are a number of the questions put to determine the key stakeholders in the project like

What kind of interest financial or emotional do the stakeholders have in the working of the system? Is it a beneficial factor or not?

What determinants motivate the stakeholders?

What are the key information they want from the organisation and clients?

Who are the spectators of this project and how stakeholder management affects project management?

What is the effect of mismanagement in stakeholder analysis and planning?

Stakeholder Engagement Principles

Communication: To convey the messages correctly and in an understandable form.

Consulting at frequent intervals: To perceive the useful ideologies and work on them with ease of comfort and understanding.

Human resource relationship: To direct and control the management with humanly feelings and reliance.

Working with working model functions: Planning execution, delivery as key as concerns (Harrison and Lock, 2004).

Differentiation between Stakeholder management in Olympics 2012 London and Heathrow’s Terminal 5

Olympics 2012 London

The Major stakeholders here are the athletes, the spectators, the visitors, the project managers, the players, the athlete association and the broadcasting networks, event organisers and much more.

The LOCOG London organising committee and the NOC National Olympic committee is the major stakeholder above all here.

The stakeholders here possessed high-quality experience, innovative services, operational readiness and long-term thinking process.

The stakeholders also possessed deeper client expectations with available set budget and planning.

They kept in account major areas of medical aids and cyber security with crowd management, Olympic torch relay in 2012 palette.

Venue planning with anti-doping technique involved to keep updated with new security climate conditions and backup plans for sports competition and presentation.

Brand Endorsement, catering and cleaning of waste management were also looked up by the stakeholders here without fail (Chatzeifstathiou, 2012).

Heathrow’s Terminal 5

The major stakeholders here are the passengers, the airport officials, the cabin crew, the ground crew, the helping staff baggage handlers and employers, the architects, the designers and the caterers, the tourist companies and much more.

This Project lacked in stakeholder management expertise when compared with the London2012 Olympics as the manpower was not as organised, dedicated and effective.

This project being a joint venture for all the stakeholders needed a lot of research work and innovation in conceptualisation.

EPG Event planning group Claims it to be the largest mega project it is still smaller than the London 2012 Olympics project.

There were many ineffective displays of stakeholder management as the project could not meet the deadlines given thus not providing customer satisfaction and reliability.

Except for the accomplishment of this project, it could not do anything extra as the key services to withstand its dignity name and fame as the London 2012 Olympics did (Singh, 2016).

Case Study and Methods

In this section, the various tools and methods that had proved helpful to conduct the research in an organised and appropriate manner will be discussed. The following various points will outline the methods implemented and make the research process transparent.

Research Philosophy

The first step in the process is called research philosophy. It is of two types, i.e., Positivism and Interpretive. Positivism is used to prove scientific theorems while interpretive is used when one needs to reach to a conclusion through findings. A detailed analysis of stakeholder management that led to the success or failure of both Olympics 2012 and Heathrow T5 has been discussed here. It is purely based on the conclusions that would be derived through the entire process of research. At this moment, an interpretive study has been used as the researcher needed to draw a conclusion based on how stakeholder management had been undertaken .

Research Approach

The research approach is the second step and defines the method that has been followed to carry out the research. It can either be inductive (top-down approach) or deductive (bottom-up approach) (Kirti, 2016). The researcher followed a top-down approach here to reach a conclusion. The researcher accumulated various facts on the stakeholder management of the London 2012 Olympics together with Heathrow T5. Through which the researcher gained enough information on the topic. An inductive method is more apt for interpretive studies as it allows the researcher to gain in-depth knowledge about the topic and reach to an appropriate conclusion after that .

Research Design

The research design is the third step and includes various methods and procedures involved in the research. It is of different types, for example, Exploratory, Conclusive, Case study, Causal, Descriptive, Correlative, etc. Each method has its significance and distinctive uses (Driscoll et al., 2017). For the purpose of this research, Case Study was the most suitable design. It is clear that the researcher had conducted a conclusive study on stakeholder management of Olympics 2012 and Heathrow T5. This method made it easier for the researcher to draw the difference line between them as the researcher had studied the different positive as well as negative aspects of both the subjects involved. The same was not possible in any other design .

Research Type

Research type is the fourth step which includes how and what kind of data is studied for the purpose of research. It consists of two types; qualitative and quantitative. Quantitative mainly deals with numerical data while on the other hand qualitative is the opposite (Driscoll et al., 2017). Qualitative method is more appropriate for this research as the data used here is not numerical as the researcher had compared the quality of stakeholder management of two different events. In order to reach a conclusion, the study required to find out the pros and cons in both the cases and then draws conclusions thereafter. This comparison was not possible through numbers as the majority of the information available on the research topic is quantitative. Hence qualitative research is the more suitable type of research. The use of this method could also be justified as management principles cannot be expressed in numbers. Here, the major role had been played by the stakeholder management itself .

Data Collection

Data collection is the method through which the required data for any research is collected. It can be primary or secondary. Primary data is collected through various techniques like a questionnaire, interviews, sampling, experiments, etc. While secondary data sources include books, journals, articles, reports, etc (Chilisa, 2011). For this research secondary data, collection method is best suited. There was no requirement for collection of primary data as the research was entirely based on the case study method. The data was comprised from various sources such as journals, articles and the reports filed from the committees involved in Olympics 2012 as well as Heathrow T5. Thus, there was no requirement of sampling and other data collection methods. Here the researcher had also used Henry Fayol’s principles in the research .

Data Analysis

Data analysis is crucial for all research. There is a multitude of methods through which it can be done. The data analysis method is majorly influenced by the type of data and research being used (Collins, 2011). Here, the researcher had opted for a qualitative approach as one of the various management principles that had been utilised here. Subjecting the use of qualitative principle applied herein. Stakeholder management was majorly discussed and focused on this research so; a qualitative approach thus proved to be beneficial in order to reach a conclusion. The comparative study of Olympic 2012 and Heathrow T5 for stakeholder management lead to a conclusion drawn on the basis of the strengths and weakness of both mega projects.

Ethical Consideration

Ethical consideration is a critical point in research. It deals with the declaration that no deceitful methods had been used in the research and data collected is authentic. It is nothing but a reminder to the researcher that the research work needs to be original so that something meaningful is derived from it for him and others as well (Wilson, 2010). In the present research, the researcher had taken extra care to avoid any kind of plagiarism as well as the data collected from secondary sources is authentic. The study is purely based on the case study and conclusions had been drawn on a comparative basis

Reliability and Validity

A lot of care has to be taken while undergoing and publishing the research work. The reliability and validity of data as well as conclusion are indispensable. It is so because if the study derives to the wrong conclusion, then the entire purpose of research is defeated. Also, it is very obvious that the wrong data and data source would lead to incorrect/false results (Thorpe, 2007). Thus, the researcher had taken care that the data has been drawn from authentic reports, journals and books. Various articles, blogs, journals, etc; are studied and compared before any fact was used in order to obtain the conclusion

Research Findings, Interpretation and Evaluation

Research Findings

The Olympic legacy (OL) is essentially involved in the thinking process carried out with transparency in the development of goals with the attainment of economic and social factors (Turner, 2009).

The sense of Olympic inheritance hereby showcases a development in project acquiring both “Promise delivering completion of the terms coming into existence in mere future” and “the uncertainty of how future beholds the destiny”. As Horne observed ‘the ‘‘inheritances’’ – whether cultural, social, situational, diplomatic, financial or sporting are the greatest attraction but also outline part of the famous indefinite’’ of sports mega-events’. The UK government undertook the striving task of ensuring a UK-wide legacy of the 2012 Games formed in six particular fields and an elaborative delivery strategy (Aperian Global, 2016).

The stakeholders here are of prime importance as the major roles and criteria are based on the stakeholders individually as well as by stakeholder management; by applying different principles and agendas in the given time span with the allocation of tasks, expertise-based. The UK government’s request for the Olympic Games’ legacy was in correlation with its evident strategy and followed two main principles – its own use in the field of sports as a solution to social problems (Collins, 2010) and the contractor based obligations that come with the right to host the Olympics games.

As the foundation of the 2000s, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) has additionally supported developmental assurances, as well as promoting a positive impact, on the political, economic and security assurances, required by governments wish to host the Olympics (IOC, 2007). The above drives are suggestive of a changing policy where country, marketplace, non-state and global players are involved in the communal drive (Farrow, 2017).

The deliverance of any shared social, economic and financial or sports activity inheritance includes design system of government officials to mentor and head the collective plans of execution towards the concerned authorities and duties in the prevailing system and management. The observations made henceforth contribute to the literature on sports in Olympics 2012. Morris (2013) Worked with Olympic governance by determining the state of the Olympics preparation with stakeholder management and Olympics legacy. What type of tasks are done in determining legacy, it concerns with which entities at what are the cost incurred, cost all included in the system working (Driscoll et al., 2017).

With an increase in the Olympic legacy discussion and realistic policy introduction, there has been a substantial change in the perception of survival growth and development in this project. The factors determining the sustainability of stakeholders for varied purposes also matter the most and is of prime importance here in possessing the legacy and finding out the legal and administrative consequences. Sustainability has become a big interest and a direct of directionality which nurtures completely new strategy to management, how it should be applied, the deliverance of the mega-event legacy, supremacy and turns it into a power regarded authority issue arrival and acceptance (Cleland and Ireland, 2006).

In the views of Kohe (2010) the reasons that enforced to take it at the compassion of sustainability is an articulated criterion with fulfilling the requirements of individuals at the time of distribution of social and economic merits with equal and fair means across the It in parallel coincides with the array of stakeholders lists like social interpreters, advertisers, brand endorsers, marketing officials, bureaucrats and architect. Sustainability represents a hypothesis swing in reconfiguring the equilibrium among the three environmental, social and economic domains in decision-making. Spangenberg (2004) argued for amalgamated politics taking into account the economic, environmental, social and institutional dimensions of sustainability. On the other hand, the study constructs on four of the explanations based on the significance of legacy, which is ordinarily shared even though under different names (Girginov, 2012).

The meaning does explain governance in the fields of political theory, with a description of the particular type of medium of exchange amid the state and the society. It is a process of heading the concerned drive with ‘new ideas in government’s capacity to act by enforcing strategised organisation coalitions with players in the external environment’ and an empirical phenomenon concerned with the deployment of concerned policy tools. In analysing supremacy in authority, Lock (2007) proved as a useful differentiation amidst its institutional property (polity), player’s constellations (politics), and policy tools and apparatuses (policy) which widely corresponds with the meanings and descriptions, by offering elaborated detail study and concluding power. These play as the major stakeholders in the project (Kate, 2017).

Controlling in this case, as Levine (2005) denoted, ‘refers to administering with and during network’. Stated as policy, governance implies paying attention to the methods of political drives and modes following the rules and norms and seeking permissions for the events to be held by using the supremacy in the power designation. Lock (2007) proposed four such models of authority in power in the policy direction inclusive of terms like targeting, framework regulation, voluntarism and Coercion in descendent order of concern (Kirti, 2016).

Coercion ‘is exemplified by bringing together the 546 International Review for the Sociology of Sport 47(5) legal apparatus by suggesting detailed and set standards that leave little freeway in implementation’. In contradiction, voluntarism is based on not bringing together the guidelines and only using terminologies those are broad goal setters played by players may categorise and focus in implementation. Targeting ‘uses non-trussing approvals, but these approvals are more specified thus leaving less space for schemes for specifying at the implementing stage, it is true in the term of voluntarism’. Contractors, quality checkers, firms that serve security, integrity services and government authorities are the major stakeholders in this context serving the nation with its allied services and functions (Harrison and Lock, 2004).

Ultimately, comparable to coercion, framework regulation depends on attachment principle in law, but it offers players more freedom in implementing. Control is also a regulatory body concept. It mirrors the spirit of the London Olympics which was obtained and were being delivered as a sustainable development project permitting the concepts and ideas in the practice of all organisations acquiring the individuals involved in LOCOG (2009). The Olympic Games bequest, as proposed the growth and a functional regulatory concept, it has been argued by APMBOK (2012). The key point is that sustainable growth, as Bourne (2015) denoted, is ‘at tips of the root, a fundamental governing idea and a great bid of efforts that have been delivered to try to identify what governance modifications are initiated to put it into working effect of the project’ (APMBOK, 2012).

In 2007, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) released the most recent edition of the Olympic Charter (IOC, 2007), documentation that provides a set of guiding principles and values for the institutions participating in the course of the Olympic Games (Kjaer, 2011). One of the major key aspects of the Charter focuses and implies the significance of an Organising Committee adverting “sustainable development in sport” (IOC, 2007: 15). On the contrary of these findings, Lord Coe and the London 2012 Bid Team in 2004 accounted a visionary for the sports and Games “to maintain relationships with millions and billions of youth individuals and correlate them to the subjection of sport and the Games like never taken place earlier”. The UK Government at the turning point said that “hosting sporty events is not an effective tool, and money raising phenomena, the process of attaining a survived increase and high ratio in public in great masses participating and catering their roles as players of the country” (Reis et al., 2017).

Cleland (2006) specified that there is a need of post-Games in the analysis of chief sports events, as a result, putting emphasis on ‘legacy’. We consider “the impact of the Olympics on general levels of sports participation”. Notably, on the flipside, Farrow (2017) stresses that all prospects are not likely amazing as of London 2012 that has been able to survive in any post-event ‘legacy’ effect (Reis, 2017).

“To attain excellence and construct an international move through which the country would contribute to the serene pledge of universal conflict” but also had the necessary set of instructions that require benefit for the growth of youth. This type of conceptual thinking can be explained in the original edition of the Olympic Charter, also the mixed Olympic education and the activists of Olympics Arnold (1996). The original Olympic Charter consisted of 4 specific aims (Kjaer, 2011).

Promoting the growth of those physical values and morals which are the basis of sports activity.

To educate youth through sport in the endeavour of better understanding among each other and of companionship, thereby helping to mould a better and more soulful world.

To broaden the Olympic theories throughout the world, thereby creating international benevolence.

To bind the athletes of the world in a great once in four years sports festival, of the Olympic Games.

Taking this into account, Levine (2005) believes, “the hallmark of his stratagem of [social] transformation, Olympics, was culture; sports provided the capital.” In support of this claim, research grants that given the elevated outline sport has in the world, the values of Olympics should be inborn in education syllabus across the globe Olympic education are about the encouragement of sport as a valued human being practice (Bruke, 2011).

A considerable challenge athwart the UK is in the walk of getting the majority of individuals getting involved in sports. The stakeholders correlated with the London 2012 bid intended to use the Games as a medium to endorse sports participation for all people and primarily focus on youth crowd by LOCOG (2003, 2004). This has shown the way to the researchers Girginov & Hills (2008) to put forward that this ‘promise’: is the most determined project in the record of the Olympic Games in terms of both its axial growth and abundance in levels of working, in order to be implemented and executed brilliantly, it has to point out not only on individual’s radical behaviour but also on the root cause of its public and social models and relationship (Pinto, 2013).

Olympic research has to broadly accepted that legacy is the term that is carried forward from generations to new generations giving rise to fundamentals in the new generation participants and involvement. Clark, Griffiths and Armour highlight that in the vision of London 2012: The proposed literacy governance is persuading to secure an optimistic influence on youngster’s lifestyle options, morals and ideals. It has to be acquired by large number participation in sports activities and games, concentrating the youth division, and getting used to an understanding of their existence in worlds graph in a global consent. (Lock, 2007).

This outcome has set to believe that any ‘legacy’ objective will only be comprehended if they are a part of active organisations. Consequently, some of the participators argue that London 2012 provides an opportunity to cater an intended ‘legacy’ through an active ‘Sport and PE Theme’ inclusive of active initial steps and strategic management, using School Sport and Club Links Strategy (PESSCL) (DfES, 2003) followed by the PE and Sport Strategy for Young People (PESSYP) (DCMS, 2008). These mentioned organisations are the stakeholders here with supporting benefits from the UK government for the sports development scheme (Morris, 2013). However, according to Turner (2009), it must be strained that these investigators do share the thought of social networks as the establishment for their construal of social capital.

Pinto (2013) believed the social capital as the relationship amongst people and reveals the “characteristics of public life-systems, standards and faith enabling participants to react together to attain the goals and objectives”. In a similar instance, Ireland (2006) refers to social capital as the “social fabric or glue”, while connecting and linking the individuals together. The basis of this conceptualisation in social capital is faith and recurring factors. Glanville and Lock (2007) pigeonholes trust as “Goodwill and Good deed expectations also acceptance of threat” and reciprocate as “a rule that needs a return in the course of goods and services executed” (Morris, 2013).

Thorpe (2007) cited in (Holt, 2007), is the one who observed the involvement of public capital in Australia, stated that sports had the capability to bring people together and allow a social appreciation for individuals from all streams. Rob (2012) sustains this allegation by indicating that sport sponsors fairness. In contrast, Singh (2016) entrusts that this discussion does not point to the real problems of unjust equality in sports such as class and status in structure and working. As a result, “in a social capital terminology, the ruling side of sports can be valued by differentiating among the linking (inclusive) and attaching (exclusive) parts of social capital.” Sports can endow with offerings for both the bridge and bond of social capital by the formation of companionship and public connections, interpretation among various networks and chains of individuals and groups (Singh, 2016).

Moving on to Heathrow’s terminal 5 specifications and details about the project and construction of Heathrow’s T5 is strong evidence of T5 being a contender in the best stakeholder management in mega projects. Studies and other sources of information have been used to gain a deeper understanding of Heathrow's T5 which has allowed the researcher to develop a greater understanding of how stakeholders were managed in this project. British Airways presented T5 as offering an improvised customer satisfaction, experience, passengers travelling efficiency as well as for baggage and handling in and overseas countries on the whole (Spangenberg, 2004).

It is not considered as an astonishing fact, about the empirical examination of procured benefits is enormously in lack of benefits of usage of the single terminal for commuting. This piece of writing subjects to pointers that are merits and demerits in T5 execution development and planning (Bradley, 2010).

Airport terminals related backdrop the functional benefactors on accountability and affordability to airlines with single user entity in terminals. Using airline branding and secularism have been the matter of key concerns here. The Airports Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) lightens a number of executable applications of single-user terminals; some are fruitful, for the airlines, the customers, and the officials but in some cases hinders the working of T5 (Turner, 2009).

“In Europe, for instance, the close immediacy of several countries formulates the major number of flights internationally. As of this kind of airports mostly serves the international flights rather than the domestic ones, they are in need of a common terminal to fly with ease of location, operation and excursion. Chronologically one can say that the airports in the United Kingdom were enlarged in combination with a flagship carrier. This kind of relationship between the airports gave rise to an invention of hub airports like T5 in London (Sommers, 2000).

The Matter of fact here is that the combining of airline services under one roof as a joint venture for 5 airports serving world-class amenities and practices of influential factors brought a change in working mechanism like using the airport as a single user access entity; and in common with more knowledge needed to be at the airport services as well as to enjoy the benefits at a large level with greater scope (OECD, 2015). In fact at the same time as there are existing traffic portfolios and timetables of scheduling to be done did not support a prophecy of exclusive-usage, which lacks here in some contexts. It is relevant to imagine that if traffic contours with major heights support shared-use terminals to utilise services efficiently, those with a compliment trend across the hours will be more advantageous to special uses. In addition, airlines with jam-packed schedules are more prone to profit from single-user terminals than those with lighter schedules terminals (Zukowsky, 1996).

In regards with the stakeholders, BAA’s judgment allows BA sole possession of T5. Doherty (2008) declares “BA embodies around 40% of traffic at Heathrow’s T5, and it is a mix of domestic flights, short- and long-tow traffic usually offers a smooth daily profile of traffic passage that allows the infrastructure to be used efficiently throughout the course of day and night working hours.” Doherty (2008) provides no clear evidence of the traffic management strategies related to common terminals services. Dennis (1994) proposes that the effective functioning of airports at processes correlating passengers and baggage can be monitored by the underlying airport terminal’s minimum connection time (MCT). The MCT for co-ordinations within T5 is calculated as 60 minutes, significantly lower than the average MCT of 87 minutes for correlations between terminals at Heathrow OAG World Airways. Guide (2009) played the key role of stakeholders in this project (OECD, 2015).

The studies above help to determine the usage and functionality at Heathrow’s T5. Also, the stakeholders involved here are of the private concerns; some of them work under the government-allied services in Heathrow’s. This mega project would have been carried out with a negligible amount of mistakes and mishandlings to complete the project in time with respect to the work in time objective and sustainability ratio in the development time and cost incurred here (Webb, 1997).

On the basis of the observations done here, one can easily analyse that the working execution, planning and implementation of this project was of utmost importance and would have set a benchmark in the history as that of London Olympics 2012 has done. The huge manpower, economy involved in this project is clear evidence of major and priority stakeholders and their management which could have been enhanced with special surveillance and alliance in co-operation and corporation both.

The problems related to the launching of Terminal 5 are a bitter experience to BAA. They did not serve the level of service they should have incorporated and strongly apologise to the customers and passengers facing discomfort. They humbly took the initiative to admit the flaws and rather tried to overcome it with the best possible means available for working on it. They do not blame others for their mistakes and take full responsibility for the undesired impression levied on the passengers (OECD, 2015).

Some issues were connected with the accountability of BAA and some issues were with that of British Airways. While the organisation will strongly like to condemn the reason behind the flaws in the system, their prime concern was to work jointly with British Airways to bring the high-quality facility that commuters deserve and that they are convinced the new terminal can carry. As of now, they have been focussed on solving issues; it is common that BAA and British Airways have a different assessment of the competitive weighs of flaws on each contender side of the stakeholder's management programme. For effective stakeholder management one has to attain and deliver the responsibilities with the set principles like effective communication, thorough knowledge of technology and equipment handling (OECD, 2016).

The launch of Terminal 5 carried natural hazards. The Terminal 5 site is analogous in dimension to Hyde Park and would have been one of the biggest (largest) airports in Europe. On the night of 26–27 March British Airways shifted its UK domestic flights to Terminal 5 along with its long-tow flights from Terminals 1 and 3, and the vast majority of its short tow flights from Terminals 1 and 4. Over 10,000 staves started work in the structure for the first time. Aircraft, cabin crew, airport authorities, equipment, and ground handling vehicles were moved across the airfield. These were stakeholders who had to implement new processes in new surroundings. As recorded, problems on the 27 March collected to a point at which travellers were unable to check their baggage and 68 flights were cancelled setting the major drawback in working on the airport in full swing troubles during the first 11 days of operation, approximate of 15% of scheduled flights at Terminal 5 was cancelled among a total of 636 flights from about a total of 4,095 flights (OECD, 2015).

Some customers who travelled did not find their baggage as it was misplaced. BAA apologises for the postponed luggage, and mishandling of baggage. Having recognised the knock-on effect, it has on other airways; they tried to ensure the belief that such malfunctioning in the system would not take place and on the scale what occurred. Mitigating the passengers the flights with scheduled time and date was of prime focus for BAA now as the key concerned stakeholder individual herein (Bourne, 2015).

Roles and Responsibilities of stakeholders are both associated with BAA and BA (Mercantile establishment) that regulates independent of Government authorities. The Department for Transport, again an individual stakeholder has no straight role in the supervision of Heathrow Airport or Terminal 5. The Ministers and superior higher officers from the department closely monitored the events at the terminal as an event tracker officer from the date of opening. They served the purpose of work by being in regular contact with the Transport Committee, the major stakeholder in commuting the services for travellers and airport officials. The secretary of the state mentions clearly to BA and BAA that department of transportation was ready to help the operations performed with ease of operation and deliverance.

The Aviation Minister Jim Fitzpatrick had a visit to the airport in the first week of opening to experience the practical operations carried out, and whether or not if the process if smooth before the opening of Terminal 5. The Secretary of State on 20th of November requested the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) for advice on the passenger experience at Heathrow by rating and ranking of the advantages of Terminal 5. More evidently, the Department’s Transport Security and Contingencies Directorate (TRANSEC), the UK’s transport security regulator, used to work effectively with both BA and BAA. To assure the airport, airlines and other factors are managed efficiently with safety measures. All of these stakeholders are of importance as with the absence of any of the stakeholders the working of T5 could experience another setback (Bourne, 2015).

The gauges are implemented and remunerated by BA and BAA; factors are considered and taken into account for taking corrective actions in the delivery of course of action. The Government’s suggestion confers that BA and BAA should carry on to work in companionship to dissolve any subjecting issues at Terminal 5, and agree to an in time approach for timetable shifting of BA’s long-haul operations from one terminal to other terminals. The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) is the independent regulator of the aviation industry. The CAA make compulsory for the EU Denied Boarding and Cancellation (DBC) regulations, which sets the airlines’ responsibilities to commuters in the event of delayed times on departures and flight cancellations (Basu and Millard, 2010).

It kept track of the circumstances and records that T5 underwent a surprise inspection of T5 on the weekends 29th and 30th of March. This pointed out the issues in supplying all customers with the details printed on papers like boarding pass etc, but BA managed to regulate extra supply, and CAA was also assured that now BA and BAA are aware of its functions, role and capability of handling the system, without it collapsing so easily. The stakeholders in this task were finally capable of delivering their role with less and minimised the number of flaws, giving appraisal to new contracts and many more renewal procedures for the tenure of working. The working might not affect the other stakeholders as there was a rapid improvement in all aspects as well as in stakeholder management plan implementation (Doherty, 2008).

The British Airlines carried out the substantial changeover of aircraft and infinite parts of tools, machines and means of transports from Terminals 1 and 4 to Terminal 5 all night on 26th/27th March flourishingly and a leader of the schedule. British Airlines operated 153 flights, 81% of it was the planned departure schedules, from Terminal 5 on 27 March, carrying 18,027 commuters. For arrivals, 84% of planned services drove, totalling 157 flights and 18,557 travellers. Between the 27th and 31st March, British Airlines operated 83% of both its arrival and departure flight programme from Terminal 5, a total of 1,523 flights, and carried almost 200,000 commuters. Through this duration, services from Terminals 1 and 4 carried to operate as planned. Inclusive of the majority of the airway’s long-haul air travels and a number of Europe based facilities, totalling more than 800 flights and 148,000 travellers. So far, broadly reported, there were a great number of failures in locomotion of the flights and ground services in the first week of operation in Terminal 5 (CEM Systems, N.D).

Interpretation and Evaluation

In this case study, two projects (Olympics 2012 and Heathrow T5) are compared based on how effectively they conducted stakeholder management. The principles followed in this project are some of the principles from Henry Fayols 14 principles like the work in time paradigm, the division of work, authority and responsibility, unity of command, subordination of individual interest, remuneration and the degree of centralization to be focused on had to be taken care of in managing the project deliverance on time and with perfection.

Applying these laws to the stakeholder management tools, one could specifically be able to analyse the outcomes from the findings and also interpret and communicate the same with the intention of clear evidence in this project. Stakeholder management tools used were stakeholder identification, stakeholder analysis, mapping with power, interest grid, and stakeholder strategy which mainly included planning and communication with knowledge from experts to manage and accomplish the project with focus and dedication.

London 2012 Olympics was a success when compared to Heathrow’s Terminal 5 by many major aspects and concerns regarding the management, the project guidance, mentorship, the key stakeholders involved. Environmental factors were also better managed such as climatic security in climatic changes broadcasting, managing the broadcasting network, managing caterers, legal advisors, contractors and many more with effective communication and guidance.

On the other hand, Heathrow’s T5 was a failure in some aspects especially in stakeholder management. Being a mega project, it faced many hardships in the implementation and execution because of the negligence in supervision and communication gap between the stakeholders and the project holders. The major determinants in the management of a project are government support; financial funding involved in the project, employer distribution, control, communication and advanced skills to supervise the project effectively. Moreover, the only perception criteria used here should be the goals to be met and achieved in a successful manner, with ease of working approach. There are hindrances in every project, but one should possess the quality and reliability so that the arising hindrances can be reduced to a minimum that can be rendered and delivered with negligible discomfort and problems. The major concern and understanding are of prime importance so that the working could be carried out with enormous positive effects with fewer numbers of flaws. The ideal behind Olympics 2012 London was to bring awareness in masses of UK province regarding sports and communal games and to prove the matter of the fact that participation is more important than winning to maintain the socio-economic conditions maintained of a particular county with the social inheritance. The participation of large numbers of citizens and athletes added to nation’s victory making it proud and famous among other nations with interest in sports and cultural fests also organised by the Olympics 2012 Committee and organisation of sports London. The Heathrow’s T5 experienced a setback in terms of stakeholder management as a result of the shaky foundation of working methods, planning and decision-making process. There were no periodic follow-ups previously in the working of the system with any proper evidence of working reports and strategies followed. A mega project is a project where every piece of information is important to be recorded for the passing of the bills and expenditures and other records of manpower management. Negligence at this level was intolerable, and the victims of these hindrances were the innocent passengers and visitors at the airport. Though the BA and BAA apologised for the losses and the grievances being experienced by the customers but it could hardly afford to compensate the goodwill and status of Heathrow’s in peoples mind and heart. “The first impression is the last impression”, this saying sets here within the context with Heathrow’s T5. With the progress in time and funding, the stakeholders of this project realised their mistakes in mismanagement and working on trying to eliminate them by bringing the situations under control with understanding and mutual consent. In the intervening period, British Airways took charge of the airline's shifts and cargo management of goods and products like couriers and baggage. They applied effective methods of data collection of fellow passengers and data analysis of the possessed records to process them with proper record maintenance software and fix the other related issues in the implementation of the failures reconstitution in the system. Once there was a problem with the airport printing system, the boarding passes were not printed electronically confusing the passengers and the airport officials operation the flight schedules; causing passenger departures cancelling numerous flights resulting from no mistakes of the passengers travelling incurring heavy losses. The stakeholder management is effective only when there is coordination and control among varied stakeholders with mutual understanding and consent to accomplish the project with perfection within set deadlines given. The technology management in computer and Information Technology department played as a major stakeholder in managing the major data provided to the airport department. They were working very poorly previously. Later on, with the issues faced they tried to overcome the failures eliminating them to 0 after the impact was drawn wrong on the public .

Olympics 2012 London was better in execution by every aspect as the planning and execution headed by them was stupendously phenomenal as they could attain every phase in development with proper determination without showing their lazy attitude; as this project was in the hands of the expert dignitaries, country’s workforces with utmost interest and amazing facts gathering as a tool for project sustainability and credibility. There were rewards given for appraising the employers and motivating them such programs were not initiated in Heathrow’s T5 de-motivating the employers and working people creating a feeling of negligence among officials.

There were many hardships like moulding the rough areas into finished spaces and grounds, converting the poor homes into flats by paying them remuneration for land to convert it into the country’s progress and initiative to development and growth with games awareness and participation. The lush green stadiums and structured relay tracks attracted the spectators towards the Olympics enforcing them to participate in the games, adding to national integrity. The stakeholders here however managed to incorporate and coordinate all the activities involved in the processing of the projects vast extents as well. Whereas Heathrow’s T5 did not pay attention to the minor consequences in the activities performed in functions of management to be carried out successfully causing the root cause of major failures interdependent on the primary concerns.

The stakeholders being of the private concerns did not take thorough initiative with trust and faith to deliver the desired responsibility and control hampering the social impact and goodwill of Heathrow’s T5. Heathrow’s T5 experienced setback factors when compared with London Olympics 2012 with respect to many aspects. Heathrow’s T5 is a terminal that is majorly used by the British Airways and Iberia.

It provides an enormous range of amenities for the travellers such as restaurants, hotels, shops, care hiring services, money exchange facility, and customer leisure places like spa, lounge and cafes. The design of this terminal had begun in 1989, but the planning permission by the government was granted only in Nov 2001. The terminal was officially inaugurated by Queen Elizabeth second on 14th March 2008 and then opened for the passengers on 27th March 2008. The terminal operates with about 31.9 million travellers who then operated more than 200000 flights. Trying to bring everything under one roof for customers and passengers and multi terminals to be converted into one single terminal was of a major challenge.

All the check-in counters are situated at the top of T5. All the airlines provide their self-service check-in kiosks, and the airline authority leads the passengers to appropriate sections. There are online check-in facilities for the passengers where the passengers can do a self-check-in of baggage and boarding as well only left with the security check. There are inter-terminal trains for passengers to commute easily in between the terminals in T5 with ease of accessibility. Such facilities to be provided with perfection took a long time to develop. Maintenance of the airport is also given to different stakeholder with different responsibilities to be delivered and catered.

There are plenty of parking facilities at Heathrow’s T5. There is no waiting stay parking at T5 being a busy junction for all the passengers. The main parking area is situated on the northern perimeter road. Walking distance also there is availability for the coach service like the shuttle service provided by the airport to reach the parking area with no discomfort. The coach is available with an interval of 10 minutes gap and is also a bit waiting criteria for random passengers. There is VIP allocation parking for long stay parking with a dedicated segment differently. Significantly focusing on the essential amenities like excess baggage, lost and found property in regards with baggage and stuff, baggage reclamation area with strict norms to be filled and followed.

There is cash exchange, withdrawal facilities on T5. There is a number of bureaux de change office located throughout the terminal at level 3 specifically termed as Travelex. 80 currency types can be exchanged being a hub of various terminals being operated here. There are 14 offices in T5 for the exchange of currency and ATM ‘s of different banks to withdraw money from. The money service is essential for the economy as well as for passengers travelling to different destinations getting troubled elsewhere for the same. To maintain these services the airport authority has to keep proper track of all the transactions and avoid fraudulent activities carried out by any means.

Travel guiding ambassadors are there through the Terminal; they are in uniform at arrivals and departures zones. They can assist the travellers with directions, terminal pathways, lifts, escalators and much more with regards to assistance. There is also help desks situated at all the levels. Even though all such services were delivered, still there were many flaws in the system coordination and maintenance. For the smooth functioning of any task, one has to be attentive to the nature of problems being faced. There are medical aids and help as well as communication facilities available at the airport like wifi, pay phones, post boxes, the post office in terminal. There are trolleys and porter services, relaxation and leisure services. To manage all at once with non-cooperative stakeholders is a tough task to perform.

When compared with London Olympics 2012 the management of stakeholders in Heathrow’s T5 was thousand times better and well cooperated. Coordination planning and execution can be initiated with ease but to finish the same with perfection requires time and patience both. Dedication is the skill one needs to possess to accomplish any task fruitfully.

Hard-work and motivation were the key criteria for success in the London Olympics 2012. Stakeholder management requires management expertise skills and fund flow which were somewhere missing in Heathrow’s T5.

Heathrow’s T5 although undergone six months trial operation tenure failed in operations to be carried out on 27th march officially starting the terminal. The working patterns affected the baggage system failure, Information failure regarding arriving and departing flights and many more such non-predictive tasks took place. Heathrow’s T5 suffered many losses due to these abnormalities taking place every now n then in starting.

To recover these losses and to recreate the impression of goodwill and faith was very difficult for T5. Being a Megaproject in the UK, it was related to the sentiments of many people. To announce it as a failure really needed courage and understanding for the reasons causing failures. Planning on a large scale with experts was the need for the systems involved in T5. To eliminate the flaws and work successfully, expertise in information technology to maintain the computer systems and operations was of prime concern.

Majority of the stakeholders were managed and given the training to complete the necessary pending work and improvement. All the stakeholders took it seriously later. Olympics 2012 was a success because of effective stakeholder management and planning done at expertise level. The setback of Heathrow’s T5 is recorded in history as it was a mega project with 4.2 million passengers travelling across the globe. All the other terminals in this T5 were also badly affected because of rescheduling of flights. The Air traffic Control at the airport also experienced turbulence because of this disaster taking place affecting all the inbound and outbound flights.

Anyhow Olympics 2012 London was much better in every term of operation than Heathrow’s T5. Keeping in account all the key pointers in this project it is hard to digest the loss of fame affecting T5 because of the instances took place in past. Passengers faced problems, and the airport suffered great loss because of this and other factors.

Conclusion and Future Research

Conclusion

In this project, a conclusion has been drawn that the London 2012 Olympics conducted stakeholder management more effectively than Heathrow's Terminal 5; based on the observations and the studies conducted previously by the researcher. This is due to the London 2012 Olympics displaying how well they organised and ran the project through effective communication while focusing on fundamental management principles and management strategies applied in the system. The Olympic League and Legislature bind the stakeholders and stakeholder management criteria objectives and aim with set parameters. One of the major benefits of the Olympics 2012 was the governance and the support from all extents of the Country with the desired output and realistic approach towards the working of the stakeholder management. Using stakeholder tools to provide an impetus on the remarkable standards, set by the UK government (PMBOK, 2013).

The UK province is a place with multitasking personas cultivating multifunction strategies. The environmental factors also play an extensive role in the country’s progress and growth structure. The people involved in stakeholder management here had to follow a specific working schedule and criteria so that they could match up to the expectation and dwell in a system such that they could not be extracted out so easily with the attainment of their priority objectives at a raised specification. All the working strategies applied and enforced put the workforce to work with better conditions and appraisal of the employers added to the unity of the workers in the system rather than divide and fall. Appropriate management led to easy functioning of the working models of stakeholders.

The technical aspects were handled by technology-oriented stakeholders like mechanical engineers, engineers, and IT experts to maintain the integrity between the physical and virtual world. The broadcasting networks and the journalists also played a vital role as major stakeholder by relaying the channels of sports with the live content of the Olympics sports 2012 creating a Nationhood feeling among all the citizens of the country. This project created a positive influence in peoples mind and hearts.

The authenticity of stakeholders and the dedication towards the allocated tasks and work plays a significant traverse in the history of stakeholder management setting a prime example and standard in how stakeholder management can be effectively managed in a mega project. The spectators of this project are the visitors and players in Olympics 2012; they are also the key stakeholders without whom this project would not have existed. The UK government and the allied agencies for security management and stadium constructions were of major importance here. The main agenda behind coming up with the concept of stakeholder development and planning strategies were put forward in this project previously. There were hardships faced in all aspects, but with proper implementation of ideologies they were corrected and modified at a level where anyone could hardly distinguish the flaws in the systems working.

Moving on to Heathrow’s Terminal 5, it could not practically fulfil the needs and want of the stakeholder’s by failing to effectively carry-out stakeholder management; leaving behind a trail of tasks that had to be solved and compromised at certain levels of working. As it was associated with private stakeholders primarily, it could not grasp the speedy recovery in management policies. This project created a negative impact on the passengers and travellers at the airport. The impression on the commuters was immensely disgusting at initial phase later on transforming into betterment with warnings and compulsions charged on the stakeholders to accomplish the project.

The stakeholder management was poor, ineffective and not to the mark as they failed to impose the principles of management techniques and tools on a practical basis. The practices of stakeholders here were intolerable because of negligence and poor communication skills and understanding. Later on, the project was brought to success by British Airways and the British Airport Authority in managing the terminal with the departure arrival and baggage facilities with slow development. Creating a sense of responsibility and hospitality for the passengers and visitors was of key importance with an increase in development phase still.

The mismanagement of stakeholders made lead to project failure when compared to Olympics 2012 due to a lack of expertise, communication gap, and flaws in the management techniques applied. The methods used to discard flaws were outdated which took time to recover from the losses incurred. The project suffered heavy losses in funding capital and execution during the development and operation phase because of dilemmas and overconfidence in stakeholder under-estimating project capabilities and tasks. The laws imposed later kept the system proactive and working properly later on. So at this moment, one can say that clearly by encapsulating on the whole basis that London 2012 Olympics was a remarkable success in the history of effective stakeholder management in mega projects, and performing more efficiently and smoothly Heathrow’s Terminal 5.

Future Research

InFuture, one can make studies and observations on stakeholder management in small projects rather than mega projects. One can also make research on the stakeholder management methods other than involved in this project. Practically one can draw emphasis on management laws and principles in depth and can come to more findings and conclusions related to stakeholder management and failures in Heathrow’s T5.

Bibliography

APMBOK. (2012). AMP Body of Knowledge. 6th ed. Association of Project Management. Princes Risborough. UK.

Bourne, L. (2015). Series on Effective Stakeholder Engagement1 Stakeholders and Risk. PM World Journal. 4(4).

Bradley, G. (2010). Benefit Realisation Management: A Practical Guide To Achieving Benefits Though Change. 2nded, Gower Publishing Limited, Farnham, UK.

Burke, R. (2011). Advanced Project Management - Fusion Method XYZ - A project methodology systems approach for the project sponsor to implement corporate strategy. Burke Publishing.

Checkland, P. and Poulter, J. (2006). Learning For Action. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.

Chilisa, B., (2011). Indigenous Research Methodologies. USA: SAGE.

Cleland, D. I. and Ireland, L. R. (2006). Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation 4th ed. McGraw Hill.

Collins, H. (2011) Creative Research: The Theory and Practice of Research for the Creative Industries. London: AVA Publications.

Doherty, S. (2008). Heathrow's Terminal 5. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.

Driscoll, P. M. Veenit. et al.(2017). Methods of Research in Sport.Social Science.

Farrow, D. K. (2017). Routledge Handbook of Sport Expertise. Sports and Expertise.

Harrison, F. (2004). Advanced Project Management: A Structured Approach. 4th ed. Gower Publishing Limited.

Holt, R. (2007). The SAGE dictionary of qualitative management research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Ireland, L. R. (2006). Project Management: Strategic Design and Implementation 4th ed. McGraw Hill.

Kirti. Namee, M. M. (2016). Philosophy and the Sciences of Exercise, Heath and Sport. Routledge.

Kohe, Z. G. (2010). Disrupting the rhetoric of the rings: a critique of olympic idealism in physical education: Journal of Sport, Eductaion and Society. 15(4). pp.479 - 494.

Levine, H. A. (2005). Project Portfolio Management: A Practical Guide to Selecting Projects, Managing Portfolios and Maximizing Benefits. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Lock, D. (2007). Advanced Project Management: A Structured Approach. 4th ed. Gower Publishing Limited.

Lock, D. (2007). Project Management. 9th ed. Gower Publishing Press, Aldershot, UK.

Morris, P. (2013). Reconstructing Project Management. John Wiley and Sons, Chichester, UK.

OECD. (2015). Effective Delivery of Large Infrastructure Projects: The Case of the New International Airport of Mexico City. OECD Publishing, Paris.

Pinto, J. K. (2013). Project management: achieving competitive advantage 3rd ed. Boston: Pearson.

PMBOK. (2013). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge. 5th ed. PMI Book Service Centre. Atlanta, USA.

Rob, V. W. (2012). Social leveraging of the 2010 Olympic Games: ‘sustainability’ in a City of Vancouver initiative. Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events. 4(2). pp.185-205.

Singh. (2016).Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation, and Success. Series in ethics and leadership . Yale University Press.

Sommers, J. (2000). Gateway to the West: Designing the Passenger Terminal Complex at Denver International Airport. Images Publishing Group.

Spangenberg, H. J. (2004). Reconciling sustainability and growth: criteria, indicators, policies. Wiley Online Library. 12(2).

Turner, R. J. (2009). The Handbook of Project-Based Management: Leading Strategic Change in Organizations. 3rd ed. McGraw Hill.

Webb, M. (1997). The Architecture of Stations and Terminals. Hearst Books. New York.