Report - Olympic Park design team

23

ARCH1068



ARCH1068
Report study on design team


Aamena Shan
11-27-2016




Contents
Report study on design team 1
Introduction 1
The 'Built Product' 2
The Designer 4
Membership of the Larger Design Team 5
The Design Team's Working Methods 6
Judgement on Project Design 7
Team Success and its Influence on Project Success 9
Conclusion 10
The study of student team 11
Comparison to the Olympic Design team 11
Team member attributes to given tasks 12
Procedures taken on completion of project 13
How the team performed 15
Degree of process evolvement 15
Conclusion 17
Bibliography 18


Report study on design team

Introduction

This is a report about the London Olympics and Paralympics Park that was constructed for hosting the 2012 Olympic and Paralympics Games. The report discusses several important issues about the design of the park. Among other issues the report will focus on the built product itself, the designer and the design team, their working methods and success of the project. In January 2006, the Olympic Delivery Authority picked on EDAW consortium (Allies and Morrison, EDAW and Buro Happold) to design the Olympic park's master plan (Designbuild network.com, 2016). EDAW consortium was also tasked with the responsibility of devising the plan for accommodation on site, and other arenas that were to host the events as well as the entire infrastructure required. EDAW had the duty of designing all the infrastructure and facilities of the park including the landscape, utilities, bridges and roads, waterways and drainage, and platforms for the venues (ODA 2015).
The park was designed to cover 2 million square metres, equivalent to 500 acres in the Lower Lea Valley that acts as the border point between the Newham, Hackney, Waltham Forest and Tower Hamlets boroughs. The park was designed to serve the purpose of the 2012 Olympic Games and afterwards become a hub where people would go for education, jobs, training and cultural development activities (ODA 2016). The park was also meant to add value to the local ecology through the restoration of wetland habitats and plantation of native plant species and the cleaning of River Lea and the nearby areas. To implement the project successfully, EDAW consortium was required to stick to a sustainability master plan developed by the Olympics Delivery Committee, which they did successfully. The entire project was designed to include the Olympic stadium, aquatics centre, energy centre and substation, velodrome, broadcast and press centre among other venues (Design build network.com, 2016). The completion of the project in 2011 was successfully achieved and handed over to the Olympics Delivery Committee.

The 'Built Product'

The construction of the London Olympics and Paralympics Park began in 2008 and ended in 2012 after about 3 years of continuous work on the project (ODA 2016). The construction was completed in 2010 but the facilities had to be tested before being handed over to the client. The entire project cost 252 euro/m2 covering an area of 274 acres (Hargreaves Associates Collaborators, n.d). The client of the project was the Olympic Delivery Authority and the construction company was Lendlease. During the construction of the project, a total of more than 80,000 people worked on the project in different capacities (ODA 2015).

The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is a sporting complex in London. Its location is towards the East of London next to the Stratford City development. The park occupies part of Hackney Wick Stratford, Leyton and Bow in east London. It overlooks the A 12 road (ODA 2015). The project was designed to have several venues for the 2012 sporting activities, some of which were temporary and had some of which had to be pulled down after the Olympic Games. In their place other facilities have been developed. The most important venues in the design of the project included the Olympic Games stadium, the press centre, the energy centre and substation, the velodrome and aquatics centre, as well as the houses and other infrastructure (Design build network.com, 2016).
The Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park is believed by many to be the most exciting modern park in the United Kingdom. The Park offers extra-ordinary experiences to people of all ages. The site has two different sections with the Waterden Road cutting through it. The road is used to access the nearby Westfield Stratford City (Design build network.com, 2016). The northern section of the park occupies the Lea valley and it has lush parklands with a course for riding mountain bikes. It also has a business district and several homes. This is a relaxed area of the park with a natural feel where non-residents do not enter from morning to evening.

The Designer

In 2006, the Olympic Delivery Committee appointed the EDAW consortium to design the Olympic park. The EDAW consortium was made up of Buro Happold, an engineering consultancy group, Foreign Office, Populous and Allies and Morrison (Design build network.com 2016). The Consortium teamed up with Atkins and Arup, dealing with cost benefit analysis. Two years later, in 2008, the London Development Agency appointed a new consortium with 17 members to develop the Olympic legacy master plan. The consortium was made up of EDAW, Nick Ritblat, KCAP, McDowell + Benedetti, Camlin Lonsdale, Allies and Morrison, Buro Happold and Haworth Tompkins. Other members were Caruso St. John, Camlin Lonsdale, Beyond Green, Maccreanor Lavington, Vision XS, Vogt Landscape, JMP and PMP. The team created the master plan for the health facilities, parkland, workspace, infrastructure and new homes (Design build network.com 2016).
As the chief park designer, EDAW consortium was given the job of designing the infrastructural elements in the Olympic Park such as utilities, roads, landscapes and platforms for various venues. The designer (EDAW consortium) had earlier developed the master plan that gave London the ability to win the 2012 Olympic Games. According to the master plan produced by EDAW, the 2012 Olympic Games would serve as the main change and regeneration catalyst in East London, more so, in the Lea valley (ODA 2016). It would help leverage resources, trigger faster completions of already planned infrastructural investment and create a legacy that future generations would value and be proud of.
Formerly, EDAW was a globally renowned landscape design firm operating between 1939 and 2009. The firm also developed urban and environmental designs. The firm started in San Francisco and grew to become very successful globally with 32 offices in different countries as at 2009 (Design build network.com 2016). EDAW was involved in the design of many landscape architectural designs, master plans and land planning projects through which the company developed its reputation as a multidisciplinary designer and urban design developer.

Membership of the Larger Design Team

LDA design, an architectural firm, collaborated with Hargreaves Associates to lead the process of designing the public realm and the parklands. The design of the park was done by the EDAW consortium, which comprised of Buro Happold, EDAW and Allies and Morrison. They worked in close association with Atkins and Arup. Arup provided consultancy, engineering design and economic advice for the design of the park (Arup 2013, p. 5).
LDA design did the detailed landscape architecture together with Hargreaves Associates. LDA design also brought in Wallace Whittle on a contract basis to provide the M+E Building services design.
Apart from LDA Design who took the responsibility of the landscape architecture and master planning, Sarah Price took the role of garden plant designing, while Nigel Dunnet & James Hitchmough were responsible for the meadow horticulture (Design build network.com 2016). Sarah Price was the co-designer of the Olympic park gardens and she is a key member of the team that is responsible for garden maintenance and planning of the post games legacy design. (Hargreaves Associates Collaborators, n.d). Sarah Price collaborated with Professor Nigel Dunnet in developing the design that would be followed in the process of planting the European garden.
Another personality involved in the project was Peter shepherd. He is the head of the BSG ecology team. The team worked in close collaboration with the design team comprising of landscape engineers, planners and landscape architects to come up with the designs of species and habitat that helped meet the objectives of the Biodiversity Action Plan, and at the same time meet the broader objectives of the design of the park (Hargreaves Associates Collaborators, n.d). In 2008, BSG Ecology received an invitation to form part of the LDA-Hargreaves design team tasked with the responsibility of creating the master plan for the park. Shepherd has expertise and experience of many years in the design, creation and management of habitats. He has practical knowledge of the ecological needs of the main species and this knowledge is important in the achievement of effective design solutions in challenging settings (Hargreaves Associates Collaborators n.d). Other designers, Nigel Dunnett and his colleague known as Professor James Hitchmough, became the main horticultural and planting design consultants for the Olympic park.


The Design Team's Working Methods

The design of the London Olympics Park was a great success. The designer worked very closely with other members of the design team to ensure a smooth flow of processes that eventually led to the construction of the park. Teamwork and professional collaboration were very evident in the work of the designers. The complexity of the project turned out to be a big challenge (Design build network.com 2016). Through the experience of the team members, the designers developed proactive measures, reacted quickly and ensured that all the project parties involved received the information they needed at the right time.
The designers learnt one major lesson about coordination. Without proper coordination, it was very hard to harmonise their efforts. They needed experienced coordinators to bring them together and Arup's designers helped in this. They organized weekly coordination meetings that ran continuously for a period of two and a half years. These meetings made it possible for the teams from various disciplines to effectively work together (Arup 2013). Through these meetings all members got a chance to deliberate on important issues and to review the gaps through the coordination model. Through effective coordination and teamwork, the designers managed to follow the many (more than 100) standards given to them by the ODA to comply with (Institution of Civil Engineers (2011, p. 16). Duplication of efforts was another challenge that the team had to deal with. To avoid this, they learnt that it was necessary to carry out reviews of every standard and applied the standards matrix to track the status of the documents. This method was very useful to the design teams especially in the completion of statements for compliance with designs. The coordination of the design teams also helped a lot in the integration of newly appointed teams.
The team valued the contribution of each team member because each of them had unique skills and knowledge. Teams did not encourage the existence of hierarchies within the group, but there was need for a management system (Institution of Civil Engineers 2011, p. 16). The management system encouraged members to take up additional roles, which were necessary for maintaining progress. They also appointed work stream leaders to remain alert to the many demands of the project including time scales.

Judgement on Project Design

The general design of the London Olympics Park as provided by ODA was a success and the objectives of the Olympics Delivery Authority (ODA) were met (ODA 2015). ODA had a strategy of building the park for legacy purposes and not just for the 2012 Olympic Games. The strategy worked because the design teams designed permanent infrastructure and avoided emphasising on the requirements of the Olympic Games alone. Additional games requirements had to be integrated temporarily according to plan (ODA 2016). The master plans created a way through which surrounding communities could connect with the Olympic Park. The designs provided for an enduring legacy of new neighbourhoods within the Lea valley. The ODA insisted on legacy requirements stating all venues must be built with good accessibility, connections and be accessible to the environment. The design teams successfully delivered these standards (ODA 2015). The park has evidence of flexibility in architectural form and expression. Having taken a huge amount of resources and expertise, the design of the London Olympic park was largely successful. However, a few flaws in the process of designing the project cannot escape the attention of the observer, and this was not expected. It is surprising that such errors could happen given that the teams doing the design were experienced and famed for their past major accomplishments. For example, the planning of the landscape appears to be better off than its design (Institution of Civil Engineers 2011, p. 16). The design of the landscape has many huge pedestrian concourses, which can be busy when there are events, but completely empty and idle on other occasions. In addition, the good garden plants included in the park do not make very good gardens because they look like strips of plants lined up on highway sides.
What is so interesting about the project is the level of skill involved in designing the high quality state of the art park with extremely good quality venues. The quality of the finished product is incredible. The design team managed to incorporate innovation and sustainability in their design (ODA 2016). Compared to other stadia, the stadium was designed with a very lightweight design and it is partly permanent and partly temporary. The team designed a stadium that saves 50 percent of embodied carbon dioxide.

Team Success and its influence on Project Success

The success of the project team was very instrumental in the successful outcome of the entire project. There is convincing proof that the project succeeded because at the end of its implementation, almost £1.2 billion was saved and yet the facilities for the 2012 Olympic Games were of high quality (ODA 2016). The project also managed to put into consideration the benefits for future generations. In addition, the project was completed one year before the commencement of the 2012 London Olympics and the delivery was done in good time, allowing time for testing events (ODA 2016).
The above-described success of the project was directly connected to the success of the project team. The ability of the team to work in collaboration and deliver quality and well executable designs was pivotal to the success of the project. Architectural designs are very important to contractors and when designs are not well done, their implementation can prove to be a difficult task and may result in the failure of the project. The team ensured success of the project by maintaining robust partnerships with stakeholders and clients, convening a local team that had proven experience from major schemes and working with a logical and resilient framework (Design build network.com 2016, pp. 16-17). The team also valued full consultation with the public and other important stakeholders. The management of the team was up to the task. They engaged their skills for effective planning, careful attention to minute details, and communicated effectively (Hargreaves Associates Collaborators, n.d). They also ensured that the right people were given the right duties and responsibilities on which they were able to deliver great results. They also made sure that the entire team was fully involved in the design. These and many other practices ensured that the team was cohesive and successful in achieving its goals and those of the client.


Conclusion

In conclusion, this paper has investigated various issues surrounding the design of the London Olympics Games and Paralympics Park. The design of the park involved a team much larger than expected. One interesting thing observed within the operations of the design team was their ability to coordinate and corporate with one another as well as with the client. Since the Olympics Delivery Authority and the London Development Authority did not have a good relationship, it was very challenging for the design teams to cooperate with them. Great leadership and collaborative efforts must have gone into the project. However, even with those frosty relations between the two, the design teams managed to deliver on the task entrusted to them. The London Development Authority was tasked with delivering legacy, while the Olympic Delivery Authority wanted to deliver games and transformation. These two achieved their goals. The design teams had many members experienced in different disciplines and their ability to coordinate themselves and achieve their goals in the long run is remarkable.

The design teams were very flexible as well and it is amazing how they managed to agree on what was good and needed to be done. Teams working together often waste time trying to agree because different participants have different views. The team modified the master plan to incorporate new developments. For example, the team reduced the originally planned size of the village so that 1000 jobs and 80 villages were not relocated.
Given the opportunity, we as a team could borrow the idea of great leadership and coordination to our work. Good leadership coupled with effective communication and coordination helps team members to stick together even in times of disagreements.

Although the Olympic park was completed in time for the games, it was interesting to find that the park now has expanded in size by 50%. In terms of further developing the park, transformations are still taking place as the ODA passed the parks management team to the London Legacy Development Corporation before the Olympic games, who then gained full ownership in November 2012. The park establishes itself now as Queen Elizabeth Park and is open to the public. It is an on-going process of further developing the park, adding in more apartment buildings and expanding transportation routes (Your Sustainability guide to Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park for 2030, 2012).


The study of student team

Comparison to the Olympic Design team

To begin with, it is slightly difficult to compare the process of our design team exactly to that of an Olympic design team; these individuals have great expertise in this field they are extremely efficient and skilful in their overall design team process. Much like the Olympic Park design team, who are bound by contract and have an earned income affixed to ensure a swift deliverance, we had a deadline for the completion and submission of all of our work. Thus, we had to be vigilant of time-management, as each task was delegated and given a time limit. This stood to ensure we had enabled ourselves adequate time to complete the work as well as to review primary drafts. This was the primary role of the project coordinator (Cong). However it is also notable to point out that the team for the Olympic Park were fully engaged on site, and were perhaps on site for longer periods of time, to ensure tasks were completed on time, whilst the student team had other non-related commitments, which underlined reasoning for time needed for completion. Cong allocated each task to an individual; this ensured no overlapping of roles and each task was delegated to the individual based on their strong suit. Much like the structure of an Olympic design team this delegation process allowed for efficiency in all areas e.g. quality of work and time organisation. In retrospect, a challenging task for us overall was research. As our report and presentation were heavily dependent the research carried out, we had to make certain it was prepared promptly. To ensure the short time frame did not compromise the quality of our research, Cong allocated 4 team members to this role (Emma, Tsveti, Manho and Agata) who worked together to find substantial yet highly relevant material for the work. Principally, the Olympic team had a clear systematic project of methodology, and that is one of the reasons that the London 2012 was delivered successfully. When writing this report our sole aim was to thoroughly review and assess how we effectively communicated the process to create the report.

Team member attributes to given tasks

A review of team members' personality traits and how people form teams in the light of established research on the subject, such as Meredith Belbin's work. Once the brief had been issued and the breakdowns of groups were decided on, it comes into focus suitable tasks for each individual. The roles were broken down into research, report, presentation and project coordinator. The first meeting held was to select who was suitable for each of these roles and were then initially willingly chosen.
The groups were initially assigned at random, and were together for a short period of time, and therein lies the issue that their individual traits may have been grouped together with similar strengths over weaknesses in terms of quality of work and vice versa. Certain traits could be much more helpful in moving the project further from the start such as the traits of an Implementer (IMP) which are essential. There was the possibility that half our team may hold these traits, and that the coordinator then fills in the gaps by monitoring the progress, altering her role in the group, identifying problems and help in identifying each individuals' trait in order to complete the appropriate task for their capability.

The research was done by Emma, Tseveti, Agata and Manho, the report was put together by Aamena, the presentation was done by Dario and Francesco and all coordinated by Cong. Already working close together as peers, setting tasks to the selected individual were entrusted.

The whole group chose the coordinator selectively so the established and most confident individual was chosen for the teams' focus. She worked well in delegating the tasks appropriately, although a leader was not seen in the negative light of dictating and remained involved in the process throughout. The research team were notably consistent in communication, which was important in the collection and delivery of the research, they remained cooperative about set tasks given by the coordinator and worked well as a team to ensure the correct information was shared. However, there was a slight friction of avoiding confrontation when they were unable to gain research in time for the deadlines set. Individuals in charge of taking this research to create the final product of the report and presentation were understood to work well under pressure and in a timely manner, they have a keen sense of perfection and subjection of quality in closing off the project.
Although individuals had chosen their own roles for the project, the gap lies between actual capability and the individuals perceived confidence of themselves, for example some team members appropriate themselves as a Specialist (SP), but eventually turned out to be better as a Plant (PL) and required proper mentoring in directing their work. Moreover, this project may have required a different set of skills over the usual skills presented by Landscape Architecture students, as they may have been better suited as a Plant (PL) in a design project, requiring them to be innovative and they may be introverted. They may find less interest in a research based project like this and found difficulty in continuing to pursue in the project due to lack of experience in this particular type of project, therefore this individuals' trait may not show through.
So we may then have individuals that act like Specialists (SP) but contribute less to the research group, in comparison to someone like a Team Worker (TW) or Implementer (IMP). It was understood that team members who were natural Shapers (SH) and Completer-Finishers (CF) are better for doing the slide show presentation and finalizing the group's work.

This graph shows the correlation of the personality traits with the team roles
Procedures taken on completion of project

Our team implemented various measures and procedures to stay on track of our work and to record progress. Most importantly, we had regular meetings; we aimed for two meetings on fixed days at least twice a week. These meetings regarded the status of tasks allocated and individual reports. These meetings were arguably crucial for our overall work, as they enabled regular communication within the team and clarification of each task. Moreover, some of the meetings also allowed us to review work shared and this permitted us to vastly improve the quality of our work. Likewise, another procedure we used - as mentioned above - was assigned tasks to individuals. This was based on team member's strengths and weaknesses. One procedure adopted by our project coordinator was to follow up with members on their assigned deadlines and to overview member's work. This information was kept in a time sheet to ensure strict adherence to time limit.
In concerning the group's deadlines, before the actual hand in, we had key dates in which certain things had to completed in order for the group to coordinate efficiently. The first date was on the 10th of November in which the research group were to present their current findings to the rest of the team, this also enable structured questions for further information required and feedback from the rest of the group. By 21st of November it was expected that the research group had given in all of the material via electronically or hard copies so that the rest of the team could look into it. The coordinator (Cong) then reviewed this information and handed it over to Aamena who would then go on to writing the report, information included all of the research, meeting agendas, any relevant information in relevance to the brief. It is also vital to point out that as per brief, individual set tasks were also set, in which had to be handed in for the set date for peer review. So by 1st of December the first report draft was to be handed in by Aamena, this reviewed by the rest of team for final editing and any extra in formation required was to be added in, the presentation group were also expected to have a structure ready for the presentation. The final report hand in was the 8th of December and the presentation done by Dario and Francesco had completed their first presentation draft ready for peer review, 15th December was then the presentation day; presented by the whole group. The coordinators key role in making sure the deadlines were met were done by consistent communication with individual team members, and filling in gaps by finding external contacts for research and resolving any issues at hand.
Despite our satisfactory outcome in the completion of our overall work, arguably the most trying aspect of working in a group was at times communication. Though differing views and approaches are insightful at times it was hard to agree on one approach. Secondly the composition of different companies was somewhat difficult, as knowing which company to approach for the correct type of information was a challenge.
Another challenging factor we have now learned is within the arrangement of meetings. Meeting frequently and consistent was at times challenging due to the incompatibility of team member's schedules and convenience as well as other commitments. This was particularly strenuous on those who lived further. Though we can all agree that through these dedicated time-slots we were able to assess work and communicate more often, which we learned was a fundamental factor when work in a large group. But again further emails and discussion would have been even more beneficial as delivering work of great quality in a short time frame was challenging. Likewise, contacting designers/contractors for the Olympic Park design were hard to reach at times and information given was not tardy, this was pressing for us as we had a very strict deadline to adhere to. This was one of the primary setbacks for our team. Subsequently, we learned that some factors were out of our control, as some contacts did not respond to our correspondence within this time period.


How the team performed

In recollection, we can all agree that our team performed satisfactorily. As previously mentioned working in groups can be challenging at times and there are benefits and setbacks. The variation in our group did allow us to have versatility to some extent, in that we had various ideas and methods toward our work. Furthermore, where some of us were weaker in traits other team members were able to assist, as they were stronger in those suits. However, at times we did disagree in certain approaches to tasks. Also, despite role allocation there was information overlap and some repetition.
In terms to anyone being a dictator we would have to disagree, though there was a project coordinator who was in charge of inspecting the status of each of the tasks alongside role allocation and the delegation of tasks, it was a fairly organic process. In addition, this was not necessarily a hierarchical order but more of an efficient structure that facilitated proficiency of each task. The biggest challenge that we had faced was the group working together rather than taking tasks and working individually, on meeting at earlier stages we found this was the case and that information would not collectively work together. This lack of information led the entire progress to slow down. Although it was a good start in individuals taking their tasks, engaging in them and getting on with it straight away, it was not the ideal way in working as a group, as the lack of experience in the practical work for the individuals caused them to detract in completing the task if stuck. However, if the issue was identified, the set task could have been altered or broken down so the brief requirements were met more smoothly. The team members who were responsible in finalising the gathered information for the report were fully involved in the research process, so they weren't unfamiliar with the information once all of the research had been done. This was helpful for the final presentation as these team members were able to contribute their input when needed.

Degree of process evolvement

Essentially processes did evolve, though initially members independently competed in their own individual tasks, we recognised after the first week that for additional involvement within the group, we needed to have more communiqué. This was made sure by the project coordinator who warranted this in team meetings, through the process of peer review through shared information and critical feedback. Granted this was not completely achievable as we had a short time frame and a number of tasks to complete.
In terms of what worked, we would definitely say the ease of accessibility between communications with peers. We had various social media platforms to effectively communicate i.e. 'Facebook' and messenger chats. This was less restrictive rather than 9-5 hours. Moreover, we also used 'Dropbox' to send and receive files, allowing us to keep track of the progress and completion of work. Moreover, the project coordinator could review work and give constructive feedback.
Disputably, though the project coordinator provided feedback, as it was the chief response it was subjective at times. Therefore, regarding the question of what could have been better, probably more thorough peer review. Also, the extent of research in esteem to relevance however the time limit was a contributing factor. Though time was misused searching through information, which at times was somewhat irrelevant and not as specific. The coordinator initially had set out tasks in hopes that the rest of the team members would report issues when faced with difficulties when encountering them, but it was left that the simpler and less complex issues were left on waiting, for example not being able to find certain documents that were sent electronically. So the issues that were faced were not so large that they were unable to move the entire project forward. As some time had progressed the team worked closer together as we had understood who was lacking what in certain areas and were able to assist each accordingly. Remarkably the team members who had chosen their roles from the beginning were still positive in progressing their stance up until the final stages of the project. Team members were also used for other parts of the project when completing the final project, so the right amount of information was used correctly, but none of the team member roles were changed entirely. This could suggest that the initial role selection done by the team members meant that the inquisition was a successful arrangement for this project.
Certainly at times there were surprises, there was apprehension about contacting external individual and organisations, it was difficult contacting relevant Individuals alongside getting information and there was considerable delay in the correspondence. Information which we were reliant on, which meant we had to find said information elsewhere.
The degree of process evolvement was that there was some critical review from team members however it was demanding to repeatedly provide feedback and as a result team members had to be predominantly self-sufficient.
But, yes to conclude the processes did evolve, in that independence and self-reliance granted us the ability to adhere to the strict time schedule and be more vigilant of errors and enhancement of our own work. Likewise, we increased communication and weekly meetings, however social media platforms enabled us to further communicate effortlessly.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our team was incredibly communicative and though we had meetings our use of social media- a seemingly unconventional tool- did allow us regular and consistent communication at relative ease. Our team had a great dynamic and we rarely disagreed. Retrospectively, many lessons were learned, chiefly design methodology. We needed a systematic methodology together as part of the project plan, and that the success of the Olympic park project was mostly due to the having a team of specialists and created a comprehensive project plan that were extremely strict on deadlines. They had internally planned in detail clear indications of mitigating communication most different companies and schedules of the projects. We gained great insight from the design team of what the design process of the Olympic stadium entailed. Also understanding that during a design process, negative setbacks are inevitable, but these can be resolved.
In terms of development, probably our range of skillsets e.g. communicating effectively in a different group, communicating effectively and professionally with contractors. Also we have learned the effectiveness of desktop research, for example through interview videos, online documents and design websites, when some of the research was not able to be found by directly contacting the design team. Ideas that we transferred from our project team to our own work would definitely be any methodology that worked successfully toward our final product. What is more, information gathered from contractors, engineers and design companies could be transferred to our individual work. In essence, being audacious when contacting organisations for niche or relevant information.












Bibliography

Arup (2013). London 2012 to the Finish Line and Beyond. London 2012 Olympic and Paralympics Games Information sheets.
Design build network.com (2016). London 2012 Olympic Park Master Plan, United Kingdom. Available at: http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/2012olympic-park/ (Accessed 25 November 2016).
Hargreaves Associates Collaborators (n.d). Information about Design Process.
Institution of Civil Engineers (2011). Delivering London 2012: Master Planning. ICE.
Locog (n.d). Locog and the London Legacy Development Corporation Begin Olympic Park Handover.
ODA (2016). Olympic Delivery Authority 2006-2014.
Olympic Delivery Authority (2015). Olympic Delivery Authority 2006-2014-Final Report. Crown.



[Company name]
[Document title]
[Author name]
[Date]