Applied PM Traineeship · PRINCE2 Framework
Olympic Programme — Paris
01 — Planning
The first artefact wasn't a Gantt chart — it was a structured audit of what the existing Gantt charts were missing. Before any delivery work could begin, the plan needed to reflect reality: six milestones absent from HotelO24 and four from the Gymnasium, each with a rationale tied to source documentation.
Missing entries included the Rooftop Terrace Safety Check (already overdue by Month 6), IOC Marketing Approval (needed by Month 7 to protect launch), Staff Induction Visit (Month 8, time-locked to construction access), and Design Adjustments for two newly scoped gymnastics events added late by the Gym Committee.
Each gap was traced to a source document and assigned a target completion month that protected the critical path. Dependencies were mapped explicitly — if the terrace cert slipped past Month 6, the IOC legal agreement in Month 8 was directly at risk. That chain needed to be visible before construction entered its final phase.
Waterfall means late changes are expensive. Catching them here, in the planning artefact, made them manageable. The discipline is in auditing the plan before committing to it.
02 — Risk & Issues
Each entry was sourced explicitly — from a surveyor's report, an operations email, a Gantt dependency, or a stakeholder request — and scored on a 5-point impact × likelihood matrix. The logs were maintained across both sub-projects, with distinct entries for shared dependencies like the Site Manager vacancy.
The highest-rated issue (I001, Impact 5 / Likelihood 4) was the missed Rooftop Terrace safety certificate — a legal risk with the hotel chain threatening to invoke contractual clauses. R003, the Site Manager resignation, was scored Likelihood 5 because it had already happened. That distinction — risk versus confirmed issue — shaped how each was escalated and owned.
Brexit-related gym equipment delays, the unbudgeted virtual tour, and missing UK/China team requirements all entered the logs before they could become launch blockers. The discipline is in logging early, not after the damage is done.
03 — Reporting
Both Highlight Reports were produced on the same date, giving the Programme Sponsor a consolidated picture of programme health. HotelO24 returned Amber Overall — triggered by more than one Amber sub-category and a Red Resource flag. The Gymnasium returned Amber across Scope, Resource, and Timelines, with Costs as the only Green.
Each RAG rating was justified against the definitions table in the report template — not applied subjectively. Resource was Red for HotelO24 because the Site Manager had resigned with no replacement in place: "Resource not in place / roles not identified / impact on ability to deliver." That's a Red by definition, and it was flagged as one.
Alongside the Highlight Reports, a structured monthly update was sent to the Paralympics Programme Office in Lyon — covering accessibility readiness, equipment delivery risks, layout changes, and coordination status. Different stakeholder, different format, same rigour.
An honest report, not a managed one. The Red Resource flag triggered a board-level approval request for an interim contractor. That decision could only be made if the report reflected reality.
04 — Governance
The governance structure wasn't inherited — it was defined. Programme Sponsor held ultimate funding and strategic authority. The PM sat directly below, accountable for all planning and stakeholder management across both sub-projects. Operations Manager, Design Lead, and Tech Lead each reported to the PM, with the Site Manager (VACANT) flagged explicitly in both org charts.
Each role was traced to a source document with rationale for its position. The Design Lead rolling off Q2 and the Tech Lead dropping to 50% from Q3 were both flagged as delivery risks — not just org chart facts. Naming the vacancy wasn't procedural; it was what justified the contingency draw request to the board.
Stakeholders — Hotel Manager, IOC Legal, IOC Comms, Gym Committee, Paralympics Programme Office, and 18+ National Teams — were documented separately from the delivery team, with their influence and information needs mapped against the comms strategy.
05 — Budget & Stakeholder Management
The budget artefact identified six items not costed in the existing resource budget: a replacement Site Manager (contractor rates likely £5–6k/month vs. the budgeted £3k), rooftop terrace certification work, marketing and communications support, virtual tour production, post-Games hotel conversion planning, and full contingency justification for each. The €1.5m residential conversion cost was the most significant unplanned exposure.
Stakeholder management was handled through structured written communication. The email to the Hotel Manager addressed four open issues directly — terrace certification, IOC legal status, marketing material approval, and induction site access in Month 8 — with a clear position and next action on each. No ambiguity, no deflection.
The contingency fund (£688,425 — 10% of resource budget) was formally justified for three specific draws: Site Manager replacement, virtual tour delivery, and initial terrace compliance work. Additional funding routes via Tech Lead reallocation and IOC central comms were also identified.
Project Artefacts
project-templates-waterfall.xlsx
What's inside
project-artefacts-waterfall.pdf
What's inside
Artefact Suite
| Artefact | Purpose | Outcome / Decision Enabled |
|---|---|---|
| Project Planning1a · 1b | Critical path mapping, milestone gap analysis, sub-project task rationale | 10 missing milestones identified across both sub-projects before delivery began |
| Budget2 | Identify uncosted items, justify contingency draws, surface funding routes | €1.5m shortfall flagged; three contingency draws justified; Tech Lead savings identified as reallocation source |
| Risk Management3 | Proactive risk identification with impact × likelihood scoring | 8 risks formally managed; highest-rated escalated to legal and programme level |
| Issue Management4 | Live issue tracking with owners, impact ratings, and target dates | 12 issues owned and targeted; I001 (terrace cert, Impact 5) escalated to board |
| Resource Management5 | Identify critical resource gaps and actions to resolve them | 6 gaps addressed including Site Manager vacancy, Design Lead retention, Tech Lead backfill |
| RAG Highlight Reports6a | Consolidated programme status reporting for Programme Sponsor | Red Resource flag triggered board-level approval request for interim contractor |
| Paralympics Report6b | External governance reporting to Paralympics Programme Office, Lyon | Accessibility readiness, equipment risks, and layout changes formally communicated |
| Stakeholder Email7 | Structured written response to Hotel Manager's four open issues | Terrace, IOC legal, marketing, and induction items acknowledged with next actions |
| Team Governance8 | Define reporting lines, flag vacancies, document stakeholder vs. delivery roles | VACANT Site Manager formally documented; escalation chain defined across both sub-projects |
| PM Actions Log9 | Priority-ranked actions with owners, sources, and rationale | 10 actions tracked; High/Medium priority distinguished; escalation routes defined per action |
| Communications10 | Improve comms structure across team and with external stakeholders | 4 structural recommendations: weekly stand-up, shared dashboard, external summaries, Comms Lead |
PM Reflection
The Core Discipline
When the Gym Committee added two events mid-delivery, the response wasn't to absorb it quietly — it was to assess the dependency chain, update the plan, flag the Design Lead extension risk, and log it formally as a scope change with downstream impact on layouts, procurement, and construction. In waterfall, you cannot close a phase until its outputs are confirmed. That discipline holds even when the brief changes.
What I Got Right
Not every problem goes to the Programme Sponsor. The terrace certification (legal exposure, Impact 5) and the €1.5m conversion gap needed board-level decisions. Marketing approval delays and induction access did not — those were operational, owned and managed at PM level. Knowing the difference is not a process question; it's a judgement call, and it shapes how governance time gets spent.
What This Demonstrates
Across both projects, eight distinct stakeholder groups required different information at different frequencies. The Programme Sponsor received formal RAG reports, the Hotel Manager received a direct written response to four open issues, and the Paralympics Office in Lyon received a monthly accessibility update with its own structure and tone. One PM, one programme, eight audiences — all requiring accurate, timely, appropriately formatted communication.
What I'd Build On
Every risk and issue in the logs was sourced — tied to a specific document, email, or data point, with the exact reference noted in the rationale. That discipline matters because it's what makes a risk log useful in a governance review, not just a formality. When R003 was scored Likelihood 5, it was because it had already happened — and that distinction needed to be explicit.
Closing Statement
This project demanded the ability to hold a full programme under a single governance structure — two sub-projects running simultaneously, each with distinct stakeholders, live escalations, and a deadline that could not flex. It demonstrates structured PM thinking: not just producing artefacts, but understanding what decision each one enables and what happens if it's missing.
Every document produced across this artefact suite — each one grounded in source-evidenced rationale — holds up to scrutiny in a real governance review. The standard I hold my PM work to is this: every document should make the project easier to deliver, not harder to read.