By Mick Hides

Now that we have entered the period of being official host city for the 2012 Olympics, I started to think about the scale of the project involved in making it all happen. This leads to the inevitable question that yet again are we setting ourselves up for failure? But is failure inevitable and could we learn from history to achieve success?

We do not need to think too hard before a range of project failures spring to mind. From the late delivery of Wembley to any number of Government IT projects, you could be mistaken for believing that we are not very good at big projects (just to balance the argument read the article from Lindsay Scott).

But let's think about that more closely. To make things easier we will use as an example of a project that most people agree was not our finest moment: The Millennium Dome.

Starting with the positive stuff it achieved its most important milestone by being 'finished' for the Millennium celebrations. Technically the structure was iconic and overcame many engineering obstacles. But that is where the back slapping ends. From the beginning it was never very clear what the Dome was all about. Right until it opened there never appeared to be any agreement about what it was meant to be; or do.

For me the Dome will always symbolise the very worst of a politically-motivated, committee-designed project. I have spoken to people who attended the finished article and they are always commending of what was delivered. Unfortunately the project can be easily summarised by "never let the facts get in the way of a good story".

Therein lies one of the key lessons for major projects and to a lesser extent all projects. As project manager you have a responsibility to maintain the perceptions of the project. A mishandled perception can quickly lead to project sponsors questioning their confidence in the project. As we have seen in the last few weeks, confidence (or lack of it) can have significant implications in the business world.

Returning to our 2012 Team, they will be judged on their results but along the way they need to manage the perceptions and expectations of the world.

One of my earliest project management lessons was learning how to eat an elephant. The answer, as many of you will know, is to break our analogous elephant down into smaller pieces. For London 2012 the first problem arises and already we are seeing the outcomes in two distinct camps. The most obvious outcome is the month of competition (if you combine the Olympics and Paralympics). Of equal importance, some would say, is the legacy issues, i.e. benefits left to the citizens of London (and wider UK) such as new sporting facilities, improved transportation systems and community regeneration. One key lesson has already been learnt and the project is keen to leave no 'white elephants' such as the aforementioned Dome.

Having a clear understanding of what is to be achieved has always been cited as a key contributor to success. Take the first moon landing, driven by U.S. President John F. Kennedy's speech in 1961.

"I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to Earth," he said.

Just as important is that once agreed, plans are not changed or circumvented by political (be it with a p or P) interference.

Considering the scale of London 2012, perhaps we should really think of this as a series of projects. Whether one of the new purpose built facilities, an upgraded venue or loan each must be ready and to standard on time. What about the volunteer force? Without a properly prepared volunteer force the Games cannot operate effectively.

Consider as well that for the 2004 Athens Olympics there were 160,000 applicants for the 60,000 posts. Already there are reports of significant skill deficits (87,000) in the construction area. The importance of these issues may be insignificant given the £9bn budget and reputations at stake.

The significance of working on a project that has poor perceptions can be very de-motivated. I for one have felt shivers when informed of being transferred to a project that has 'bad press'. A project that has a poor perception can quickly gain apathy and becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

Managing the perceptions of everyone can be as important as delivering on time and to budget irrespective if your project is on a global stage or more local level. You owe it to yourself to avoid your project be labelled as a poor performer. Ensure people want to work on it and to prevent anyone exploiting the situation to their advantage.

Let's hope that those in charge of the 2012 project(s) have included these thoughts into their risk process.

Mick Hides is a Recruitment Consultant for Arras People. He blogs at How to Manage a Camel.