Written evidence submitted by pmpgenesis
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 pmpgenesis is a leading international
management consultancy working with clients around the world to
achieve sustained high performance in business, sport, major events,
culture and leisure. pmplegacy is the major events division within
the company.
1.2 pmplegacy welcomes the opportunity to contribute
to the Culture Media and Sport Select Committee's inquiry in to
preparations for securing a legacy from the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic
Games and is well placed to add value to this debate.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 pmplegacy has been active in the major
events arena for 19 years, helping clients bid, win, plan and
deliver major sporting events. As the name suggests, legacy planning
and implementation are integral to all of the services we offer
and our expertise has been used to good effect by a wide range
of organisations since 1991. For example:
— International Olympic Committee (IOC)—Peter
Mann, the founder director of pmplegacy is an advisor to the IOC
on legacy planning.
— LOCOG, ODA and LDA—various legacy assignments
have been carried out with respect to the Olympic Park and specific
venues.
— National Audit Office—a review
of the lessons learnt from previous Olympic Games.
— Madrid 2016—bid and legacy consultants—creation
of the Legacy Commission and the "Action Not Words"
Madrid Legacy Plan.
— England 2018—bid consultants working
with the bid team on the candidate host city selection and legacy
planning.
— Legacy Lives—founders of this annual
international legacy conference that looks at best practice major
event case studies and initiatives from around the world—the
2010 event is in London 3-5 March.
— 2007 Cricket World Cup—bid and
legacy consultants to World Cup Barbados—creation of Legacy
Barbados and a 20 year Legacy Plan.
— Delhi 2010—legacy advisors on venues
and sports development.
— 2002 Manchester Commonwealth Games—evaluation
of the impact of these Games for Sport England.
2.2 Further details on our expertise and
experience in legacy planning and implementation can be found
on the website www.pmplegacy.com
3. DEFINITIONS
3.1 The widely accepted definition of legacy
in the context of major events is as follows:
3.2 Ensuring that as many long term and sustainable
benefits are generated for the host city, region and country,
well before, during and long after the event.
3.3 These benefits normally cover the following
areas:
3.4 Sporting, social and education, economic,
environmental and cultural.
3.5 The IOC would also highlight that direct
involvement in the events themselves (Olympic and Paralympic)
are also an integral part of the legacy and that "the event
experience" should feature as part of the legacy agenda or
canvas of opportunity.
3.6 Involvement includes athletes, spectators,
sponsors, volunteers and many other members of the Olympic Family.
Benefits created include enjoyment, acting as a catalyst to participate
in sport, empowerment and self-esteem (especially for volunteers)
emotion and excitement—all contributing to the all important
"feel good" factor.
3.7 Reference is also often made to both
hard and soft legacy benefits. For example, ensuring that all
permanent event venues have a viable and sustainable role after
the event (hard) and empowering communities to engage in the event
planning via a wide range of programmes and initiatives such as
volunteering (soft).
3.8 Legacy has, in many ways become an overused
word and it is important to link legacy with benefits, impact
and sustainability.
4. THE IOC'S
PERSPECTIVE
4.1 The importance that the IOC now places
on effective legacy planning and implementation can be illustrated
in three ways.
1. Chapter 1 of the Candidature File (bid book)
for Candidate Cities is entitled Vision, Legacy And Communication.
2. Christophe Dubi (now the IOC Head of Sport) said
in January 2007 at the Legacy Lives Conference that "Legacy
has made it to the very top of the agenda for the IOC. We are
looking for operational experience and positive long term benefits.
We are proud that legacy is part of our DNA".
3. At the recent IOC Congress in Copenhagen in
October 2009, the second recommendation (2.19) was as follows:
"The Olympic Movement fully
embraces the importance of embedding the key values of environmental
protection, development and sustainability within the Olympic
ideals. As part of this commitment, all members of the Olympic
Family should facilitate the delivery of a lasting sporting, environmental
and social legacy ..."
4.2 It is a widely held view throughout
the international Olympic Family, especially National Olympic
Committees, International Federations and Organising Committees
(OCOGs) that the one thing that convinced IOC Members to vote
for London over Paris for the 2012 Games was its commitment to
a robust, innovative and sustainable legacy, both nationally and
internationally.
4.3 The timing of the DCMS inquiry is therefore
both timely and appropriate and we are pleased to contribute our
views as part of the Committee's on-going scrutiny of the London
2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games.
4.4 We would be pleased to elaborate upon
this contribution and give evidence to the Select Committee and
indeed, to work with DCMS officials on the development and delivery
of our proposals.
5. OVERVIEW AND
HEADLINE COMMENTS
5.1 Major events can and should be the catalyst
for new activity, opportunity and for the creation of sustainable
benefits that would have not been created without the event at
or would have happened much more slowly.
5.2 The acid test is additionality or, as the
IOC refers to it, incremental benefits ie whether these benefits
are really new or just the result of displacement.
5.3 There is a myriad of "legacy related"
activity throughout London and the UK that would not have happened
without London 2012. Some of this is set out in the GOE's 2008
report—Before, during and after; making the most of the
London 2012 Games.
5.4 The Select Committee's challenge is
to identify the activity that really is new and also to evaluate
whether every one of these initiatives and programmes could have
been done or could now be done in a more effective way so as to
maximise the long term benefits.
5.5 There is a consensus of opinion throughout
the UK and with many would-be 2012 legacy stakeholders (especially
in local government) that the respective organisations involved
(DCMS/GOE, LOCOG, Nations & Regions, LGA, LDA et al) have
thus far, failed to live up to the promises made in Singapore
and the expectations generated from the bid publicity and momentum.
5.6 This is perhaps unfair and has more
to do with the need for more effective communication and coordination
that it does the actual activity on the ground.
5.7 Getting the right message across should
be a top priority going forward as should a much more coordinated
approach to what is being done and by whom.
5.8 Duplication of effort, budgets and scarce
resources is obviously inexcusable in the current economic climate
as is missing opportunities to really make a difference using
the momentum and catalytic effect of 2012.
6. CHALLENGES
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 The following challenges and recommendations
correspond to the specific legacy areas being studied by the Select
Committee and to additional priorities that we have identified
through our day to day work in major event legacy planning.
Challenge 1: Communicate more effectively and
secure "buy-in"
6.2 A considerable proportion of the very good
work being done by Nations and Regions (N&R) and the GOE through
its Legacy Action Plan (LAP) is not being communicated well enough
(top down and bottom up) to the respective stakeholders. There
is a strong perception around the country, especially within local
government that "2012 is not helping us" and that legacy
does not appear to be a high enough priority for Government.
Recommendations
6.3 Review again the examples of discrete legacy
organisations such as Vancouver's 2010 Legacies Now that operates
very effectively across all areas of the legacy agenda (sport,
social, education, economic, environmental and cultural) throughout
British Columbia.
6.4 Review the overall structure and reporting
mechanisms currently in place for N & R and also consider
the following new initiatives with respect to its scope of work
and remit:
6.5 Commission a PR and Communications Agency
to review just how GOE and N & R publicises the work being
done and to make suggestions on how the overall communication
could be improved—at all levels of engagement. Ask them
to review the N & R name and come up with a much more dynamic
and appealing brand with legacy in its title and with a clear
strap line that embraces the "benefits across the UK"
messaging.
6.6 Bring together all the various legacy
plans being worked on by N & R and related organisations such
as LegacyNow London (Gains beyond the Games) into one overarching
National Legacy Plan (NLP) that highlights programmes, targets,
progress and key performance indicators in a more holistic way
than the five promises set out in the GOE's LAP.
6.7 Distribute this NLP to all relevant
stakeholders to help ensure increased ownership and buy-in to
the processes being developed and to improve the public's perception
of what long term legacy benefits are actually being created.
6.8 Integrate the relevant work being done
in the UK by the International Inspiration Programme (IIP) into
the above NLP in order to demonstrate the holistic approach being
taken across the legacy agenda.
6.9 Commission research in to best practice
legacy initiatives and programmes from around the world in order
to help identify where the gaps are in the current NLP and inform
ways in which these gaps can be filled in order to create more
impact, a more positive public perception and greater long term
benefits.
6.10 Launch a new NLP in mid 2011 that also
pays due consideration to ensuring that as many people as possible
throughout the country benefit from the "event experience"
legacy (see reference above).
6.11 This will be linked (in liaison with
LOCOG) with ticketing policy for spectators; the overall volunteer
programme; engagement with IOC and 2012 sponsors and no doubt
many other stakeholder groups, including London and local authorities
around the country planning fan fests, city dressing, links with
the Cultural Olympiad and other related initiatives. Set targets
for how many people in the UK can be directly involved in 2012
and aim to inspire millions via this "feel good factor".
Challenge 2: Deliver the dream nationally
6.12 Few local authorities in the UK are
going to benefit from any long term sporting legacies from 2012.
Despite all the work of both the N & R and the Local Government
Association (LGA) there is still the view, especially outside
London and the adjacent counties, that there will not be ANY hard
or soft sporting legacy benefits in place by the middle of this
decade.
Recommendations
6.13 We recommend that careful note is taken
of the draft document that has been produced by Kent County Council
and ISPAL (Institute for Sport Parks and Leisure) entitled London
2012 Games—Sports Legacy Agenda for Local Government. It
builds upon much of the good practice and lessons learnt from
2012 Beacon Authorities.
6.14 The draft has gained the support of the
CCPR and is currently being reviewed by other key stakeholders
such as the Youth Sports Trust, British Olympic Association and
the English Federation of Disability Sport.
6.15 It offers an agenda for action via
26 initiatives that are applicable to every local authority in
the UK and also sets out those initiatives where support may be
required from other organisations to enable local government to
deliver.
6.16 It is important that this draft document
is given the support its content warrants and the final version
could form an integral and important part of the recommended NLP
referenced above.
6.17 With respect to all potential the myriad
of contributors and stakeholder in the world of sports development
and participation, there is a need for clear and unequivocal leadership,
support and promotion of a sports legacy for local government.
Inclusion of the final version of this document in the NLP could
be the way to achieve this.
6.18 The document is being presented and
debated at the forthcoming International Legacy Lives conference
in London 3-5 March, attended by over 200 senior delegates from
the major events sector worldwide.
Challenge 3: Engage our youth for real innovation
in legacy
6.19 One of the main reasons behind London's
successful bid to host the 2012 Olympic Games lay in the focus
on leaving a lasting legacy for the youth of the world. One of
the biggest challenges and opportunities is to ensure as many
young people as possible engage with the 2012 Games in order to
benefit from the many long term legacies being created. It can
be argued that this challenge is being addressed by the 5th promise
in the GOE's LAP—to inspire a new generation of young people.
Recommendations
6.20 To achieve a successful legacy for youth
requires engaging today's young people in designing the legacy
fro the future.
6.21 Two countries are leading the way in the
engagement of young people through major sporting events.
— Singapore via the 2010 Youth Olympic
Games.
— Sochi via the 2014 Winter Olympic and
Paralympic Games.
6.22 Both are achieving this engagement
through the use of new and innovative media platforms to generate
communication and dialogue between young people in the respective
countries and around the world. The Select committee can learn
from thee examples and help to ensure that similar opportunities
are created for young people throughout the UK.
6.23 Both these case studies are being presented
at the forthcoming Legacy Lives conference in London on 4 March.
6.24 Some excellent work has been done with
children throughout British Columbia by 2010 legacies Now in Vancouver,
working on the principle that it should be the youngsters themselves
who define and develop their own legacy.
6.25 How might this be done? New and exciting
technology enables fresh thinking and the input of ideas. For
youth to help create a future legacy they must live in the future.
We suggest scenario thinking provides a perfect vehicle to achieve
real innovation and engage the nation's youth.
6.26 Working with groups of young people,
celebrities and experts in forums throughout the UK a number of
scenarios for the future, post 2012 would be developed. Potential
strategies would emerge to achieve a vision of lasting legacy
across a number of different and divergent scenarios, refreshing
the official strategies largely built on history and experience.
6.27 Through using techniques like co-creation,
these strategies would be designed by young people for young people.
This would inspire fresh, innovative thinking building a reputation
for London and the UK as leaders in legacy rather than followers.
The outcome would be a small number of significant strategic initiatives
that would be owned by the nation and supported by the commitment
of many stakeholders throughout the UK.
6.28 We have direct experience of the development
and use of scenarios for economic and social planning and in the
use of co-creation to product new products and services for a
number of our clients, with excellent results.
Challenge 4: London Olympic Park—creating
a lasting legacy
6.29 The planning and management of the
Olympic Park after 2012 must learn from the mistakes made in both
Athens and Sydney. The former had no plans in place for sustainable
use post the event and Sydney left their thinking far too late
before a realistic master plan emerged.
Recommendations
6.30 Of all the legacy challenges being looked
at by the Select Committee, this one should be the most straightforward
to achieve. This statement however assumes adherence to the following
two best practice principles:
1. The only permanent venues within the Park
will be those that can demonstrate a sustainable future post 2012.
In this instance, sustainability refers to professional management,
full programmes of use with high occupancy throughout the year
and long term community involvement for many years to come. Regional
and national significance would be an added bonus.
2. Robust and most importantly, realistic business
plans must be produced for each venue. These plans should demonstrate
sustainability and in particular, a clear and long term commitment
for the anticipated annual revenue subsidy to be met by a responsible
authority. The plans should demonstrate effective market testing
in terms of the operational management of the facility with equal
opportunity being given to all three sectors—public, third
and private.
6.31 The creation of the Olympic Park Legacy
Company (OPLC) is to be applauded—providing it is given
a clear and unequivocal remit and budget to adhere to the above
best practices and that it is free to work (with authority and
the backing of central government) in conjunction with related
stakeholders such the Host Boroughs, the ODA, LDA and Lee Valley
Regional Park Authority.
6.32 Achieving a successful and sustainable
hard legacy for venues and facilities is a prerequisite of effective
legacy planning and should be "a given". Let there be
no more mention or incidence of the "white elephant"
syndrome so prevalent in Athens post 2004.
6.33 The Select Committee may wish to put
a series of "checks and balances" in place to ensure
the Olympic Park is a successful addition to London's landscape
and we would be pleased to advise on what these could look like.
Challenge 5: New metrics for success
6.34 Measuring the success of delivering
a lasting legacy is essential if the country is to harness all
of the sporting, economic and social benefits to accrue from bidding
for and staging the 2012 Games. Empirical evidence will be the
"seed-corn" for the major events industry in the UK
and help ensure that future bidding is strategic and done or the
right reasons.
Recommendations
6.35 The requirement to measure and evaluate
the impact of an Olympic and Paralympic Games is well established
via the IOC's OGI (Olympic Games Impact) programme.
6.36 We know that OGI data for 2012 is being
coordinated by the Economic and Social Research Council and managed
on a daily basis by the Economic and Social Data Service which
is collaboration between Manchester and Essex Universities.
6.37 We are obviously also aware of the
DCMS's meta evaluation research project. This gives an accurate
and up to date description of the current 2012 legacy initiatives
and legacy governance arrangements, in particular the promises
set out in the LAP.
6.38 We believe however that there is a
strong rationale for increasing the five legacy promises in the
LAP and that the additional promises or commitments should feature
in the recommended National Legacy Plan and include the following
benefits, to also be measured and evaluated in a robust way:
— Demonstrable evidence of new sporting
legacy initiatives being undertaken by every local authority within
the UK (link this to the Sports Legacy Agenda referenced above).
— Recognising and acting upon the need
to build capacity in the workforce to help ensure enhanced and
more professional management of sports, leisure, lifestyle, school
and community facilities.
— Recognising and acting upon the urgent
need throughout the UK for major investment in to its sporting
infrastructure.
6.39 Achieving sustainable venues within
the Olympic Park alone is not an ambitious enough legacy commitment
or objective. Plans should be prepared to engage with local authorities
(as the major providers of sport and active leisure facilities)
to review and prioritise the investment in locally based facilities,
especially those that serve disenfranchised communities with high
proportions of young people.
6.40 Use the very strong catalytic effect
of 2012 to create a new national strategy for facility enhancement,
linked to the Building for Schools (BSF) programmes and the opportunity
to channel lottery funding in to new and enhanced amenities post
2012.
6.41 This new strategic facility plan would
be informed and populated by regional plans prepared by the relevant
agencies and then coordinated through DCMS.
6.42 Major impact on the workforce capacity
would be achieved by demonstrating clear links with both the National
Skills Academy (part of Skills Active) and with the forthcoming
new Chartered Institute of Sport (CIS).
6.43 The CIS is both bringing together the
two current professional institutes ISPAL and ISRM and embracing
wider representation from leading employers. Its application for
charted status to the Privy Council is being sponsored by DCMS
and therefore a strong link is already in place to help drive
the need for increased capacity and professionalism in the sector.
6.44 The above recommendations are not made
lightly, fully cognisant as we are of the current economic climate
and major constraints upon the public purse.
Challenge 6: Increasing grass roots participation
in sport and achieving synergy
6.45 It is foolhardy and naive to expect
significant increases in participation by young people and all
age groups if we do not have the necessary high quality facilities
in which to carry out these sporting activities, nor the requisite
management or sports development skills to optimise their contribution.
The above strategic planning will begin to address this shortfall,
but it is not enough.
Recommendations
6.46 The time is now right to bring together,
in one room, all the leading sporting legacy proponents from around
the country to explore the examples of what is being done well
to increase participation and to help ensure synergistic benefits
prevail.
6.47 For example, are the lessons learnt and
examples of good practice generated by Boris Johnson's appointment
of Kate Hoey MP as his Sports Commissioner, being adopted throughout
the UK? They may well be as relevant in Hartlepool as they are
in Hackney.
6.48 The Select Committee can orchestrate
this forum of best practice and demonstrate leadership and a response
to a central theme of our evidence—the need for greater
coordination and much better communication with ALL stakeholders.
We would be pleased to offer our facilitation experience to help
this forum work well.
6.49 Communication, coordination and the
opportunity to create synergistic benefits are particularly true
in the case of creating a legacy of increased sports participation
from 2012. This is by far, the biggest challenge and as we know,
there is no hard evidence that previous Olympics and Paralympics
have delivered a sustainable increase post the event.
6.50 We should be identifying targeting
the current non-participants in all age groups through a nationwide
campaign. We should be exploring ways as to how these groups can
be engaged and to truly be a part of 2012. If the inactive and
disenfranchised can share in the event experience (remember the
IOC's mantra set out in paragraph 3.5 above, on just how powerful
a tool this can be) then we can go some small way to address this
challenge.
7. CONCLUSION
7.1 Major events such as 2012 are not panaceas
that can address all of the current economic and social challenges
in this country. The 2012 Olympic Games represents one of the
biggest and best catalysts for change that we currently have in
our society.
7.2 We all have a clear responsibility to ensure
we make the most of what 2012 can deliver in terms of real and
lasting legacy benefits. The world is watching and waiting to
see just how well we will deliver on the promises made in Singapore
in 2005.
7.3 The Select Committee, can through this
review, raise the bar of expectation, communication, coordination
and most important of all, the delivery of these benefits.
January 2010
| 
