back to article Olympics security cockup down to software errors - report

A computer software failure caused the security fiasco at the Olympics, the Independent on Sunday has said, after talking to insider sources at security contractor G4S. G4S defaulted on their Olympic security contract two weeks before the start of the games, meaning that 3500 members of the armed forces have been drafted in to …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. corcoran

    Please God let their 'internal software' have been built by CSC or someone, that'd be too perfect.

  2. Dave the Cat

    Sorry but I call bollocks, it's all too easy to just blame "IT" for the problems, did no one at G4S managment actually look at the figures? We need "X" employees for the olympics, we currently have "Y" leaving us a shortfall of "Z". How the hell can a rostering programme lead them to a shortfall of that many staff? It's really not that difficult.

    G4S management and by extension the government of the day who awarded them the contract are to blame for the fiasco, G4S for being snakeoil salesmen and the gov't of the day for not even pondering "I wonder why they're 25% cheaper than the nearest competitor?"

    A pox on all of them.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Yes it's bollocks. Yes they've known for a lot longer. The troops have been preparing to cover the short fall for a while.

    2. SuperTim


      They don't have a "rostering system" at all. They use a mishmash of very old software all virtualised under citrix and crappy old computers which should have been updated 5 years ago.

      The wife was made redundant from being a scheduler for them 2 years ago (that will be 6 months after they got the contract) and I regularly had to help her with the burden of dealing with blowouts and overcosts because their systems are so poor. Blaming them now just seems like a rather pathetic attempt to save face.

      My missus lost her job because the contract manager in charge of one of the biggest contracts just did not do enough to satisfy their needs, and lots of non-related workers paid the price (not that contract manager though!)

      If I ever met the CEO, it would be from arms length (with a fist at the end of that arm)

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Sorry but I call bollocks"

      Yup. Stubby Pencil Back of Fag Packet could have done the job of rostering, if required. This was not a task dependant on IT, but ultimately one done by people.

      And '25% less than the nearest competitor' is weasel-talk. Their bid might have already been 24% less!

      1. despairing citizen

        Best Value 25%?

        Lets see that 25% less to be 35% short on the staff they where to supply.

        For some reason if I see a tender that is massively out from that of all their competitors, I spend a lot of time digging to find out if it is becasuse they are really brilliant (very rare), or have missed lots of basic stuff (v.common)

        Personally I would go with sack the people who ran the ITT, and sue G4S for breach of contract.

        1. I. Aproveofitspendingonspecificprojects

          What does 25% remind you of?

          That broken icon icon for the Olympics, right?

          They must have been using the same computer software when they came up with that.

          Were G4S the same people who had the Marathon stewards contract?

    4. keithpeter Silver badge

      Any FE College MIS manager...

      ...could have sorted that lot. They mostly track 10k+ enrolments for the skills funding agency isr three times a year. Auditors crawl all over the figures prior to OFSTED inspections, they have data mining software. Unit-E to the rescue.

  3. Stratman

    The private sector at its finest.

    Yet again the much maligned public sector is there to clean up the mess.

    1. auburnman

      If by the public sector you mean our poor overworked squaddies and police officers from all over the country. Given the choice between being shot at in a desert hellhole and trying to keep order in London during one of the biggest knees-up in recent history, I'd have to have a good long think before answering.

      Beer for the poor buggers who have to work while everyone else is enjoying themselves.

      1. AdamWill

        "If by the public sector you mean our poor overworked squaddies and police officers from all over the country"

        That's exactly what he does mean. They are certainly public sector workers. Neocons inexplicably fail to point this up whenever they're bashing the public sector, though.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      To be honest I don't like the private sector does services too well, they're fine at making things though.

      But you can't really hold up Group 4 as an example as there's plenty of public sector examples of failure too, Haringey social services for instance.

      Group 4 have been a joke for years.

  4. ukgnome

    Yeah right!

    when you run out of people to blame the IT chaps always get a mention.

    If anyone truly believes that it was an IT system then please leave this forum!

    This was (sub)Human error, plain and simple.

    1. I Am Spartacus

      Probably using Excel 97

      The post is required, and must contain letters.

      1. kbb

        Re: Probably using Excel 97

        And Pentium processors -

        1. Anonymous Coward 15

          Re: Probably using Excel 97

          A floating point bug? I'd like to know how they intended to provide .25 of a person.

          1. Mike Smith

            .25 of a person

            Oh that's easy. They just used Microsoft Project instead of Excel.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Probably using Excel 97


            4 jobs = 1 person.

            That's how it works around here.

            1. peter 45

              4 jobs =1 person

              Around here, its 1 person to do the job, 2 managers to manage him, and one senior manager to oversee the other two, leaving guy doing the job only 1/4 of the time to complete the task before MS project complains about overspend.

  5. ian 22


    Computers are lazy buggers, and must be watched constantly. This latest is but one more example of improperly supervised computers running amok.

    Replace them all with reliable human beings, I say.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Yeah but...

    "...the security firm offered to fulfill the contract at a price 25% less than that of competitors.."

    Would be great if they weren't only providing 60% of the promised (and paid for) staff.

    Doubtless cue another name change come next year to mask the stench from fiasco number 342.

  7. JeeBee

    Group 4 Fail Again

    You get what you pay for. In this case a company that has clearly not heard of a KPI beyond measuring the money going into their bank accounts. Months ago they should have seen that recruitment was below what was needed, or training wasn't going fast enough, and they could have fixed it. The only performance indicator they had was the number of people getting interviewed, as they were quick to roll that figure out.

    Alternatively you could interpret it that even for a simple task, 9/10 people interviewed are subpar.

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Another Indian IT team to blame?

    Because that's who G$S use - rather a good mistake use a $ instead of a 4

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Another Indian IT team to blame?

      or not in this case, as AFAIK their recruitment software was written by a UK company.

  9. Julian Taylor

    Yeah ... riiight

    Step 1: Work out how much profit you can make and still undercut the competition by 25%

    Step2: Wait until the Olympics are within several weeks of commencing, so that there is no way a competitor can come in

    Step 3: Have your CEO appear before a select committee or (better still) hold urgent talks with Home Office "to resolve the situation". Issue press release on how grave the situation is and how we are working towards dealing with it.

    Step 4: Grovelling apology ... blame it on IT etc

    Step 5: Government steps in a provides troops freshly back from Afghanistan, at no cost to you

    Step 6: Nobody asks you to refund the money.

    Step 7: Trebles and peerages all round chaps.

    Ain't government contracting great!

    1. Tom Wood

      Re: Yeah ... riiight

      Except that they *are* going to have to pay for the troops, and will therefore make a loss on the contract.

      1. Dave the Cat
        Thumb Up

        Re: Yeah ... riiight

        Good, hopefully they go bankrupt. A bit harsh if you're a blameless employee admittedly, but none the less, G4S and companies like them are sucking the gevernment teat dry and giving very little in return.

        1. Chris Evans

          Shooting the wrong Person! Re: Yeah ... riiight

          "hopefully they go bankrupt." ... and thousands of innocents would suffer, workers, shareholders etc (and you may be a shareholder indirectly via any pension or investment you have.) The government would also probably be left out of pocket in many ways. Senior managers heads should and will roll.

      2. Justicesays

        Re: Yeah ... riiight

        A loss?

        They were originally contracted to provide 4000 staff at a cost of £83m ( £20,000 per person)

        then they were asked to provide 10500 staff at a cost of £279m (£26,000 per person)

        Now they say they can only provide 7000 staff, and would lose £50m (£229m overall taken, at £32,000 per person).

        So, given their cost per-person (and presumably profits) went up at each stage, how are they making a loss on this?

        Looks like they managed to increase their initial profit by 50%, and I imagine the directors already pocketed the cash bonuses (as the contract was booked last year), so are perfectly willing to leave.

        1. Tom Wood

          Re: Yeah ... riiight

          The £50m loss is just that, a £50m loss on the entire contract. Not a £50m reduction in contract value.

          Any money they get for the staff they do provide will be wiped out by the extra costs they have to pay for the armed services, police etc they are having to rope in.

          Hence why its share price has fallen so much.

        2. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge

          Re: Yeah ... riiight

          £26K per person.......... for 4 weeks work!!

          So thats about £1000 for the poor sap doing the stuff and £25 000 for the company 'organising' the recruitment and training

          And then you find out that G4S used to be called Group4 Security... which explains everything

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Yeah ... riiight

        No they won't Buckles refused to repay the £57m management fee and said so in select committee.

    2. CaptainHook

      Re: Yeah ... riiight

      Step 1: Work out how much profit you can make and still undercut the competition by 25%


      Step 1: Work out how much profit you can make taking on the unemployed, giving them a minimal training, cos all they are really expected to do is stand in the doorways wearing a uniform to give the appearance of security and pay them as little as possible, workfare saps would be better for profits.

      Step 2: Watch as public opinion turns against that sort of exploitation after the Jubilee rubbish to the point you can't even hire the saps anymore.

      Step 3: Implement plan B, which is really there is no plan B, let the government make up the short fall.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Yeah ... riiight

      You forgot step 2a and 4a and maybe 7a:

      2a: Set up an insider trade via a Belgian number account: Buy PUT's on GFS, then short the stock to tell the mark-it of your intentions.

      4a: Ka-Ching! Go right to the bank, do not pass the tax office!!

      7a: Bonuses all around for "the extraordinary management effort".

      Management is Made from Win!

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    What About A Bit Of Project Planning

    Sorry all these lame excuses do not wash for me. A simple bit of project planning was required complete with mile stones. Calculate pool size, factor in wastage advertise, interview, offer positions to enough potential staff, vet potential staff, train enough potential staff, monitor wastage/no shows/ unsuitable recruits, continue process until the job is done. Who was setting and checking the mile stones, someone's dog?

    The stories on TV and in the press suggest that there was little or no attention applied to basic process. Recruits complained that they could not obtain contact information, and that contact telephone centres did not appear to know what was happening or where they should go and so on.

    TV might be having a field day but the suggestion that 12 management staff were 'in charge' of 500' temporary managers', (here today and god knows where tomorrow). It all sounds more like an edition of the apprentice featuring the also rans than a proper 10,000~13,000 security staff provisioning exercise.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: What About A Bit Of Project Planning

      Oh, i'm sure they managed to recruit qualified project managers,

      HR will have put "Required: Prince2 certificate", but nothing about actual experience at resource management, project managment, man management, etc.

      1. peter 45

        Re: What About A Bit Of Project Planning

        Just how true is that.

        A friend did the Prince 2 courses and now teaches Prince 2. He has never run a Project in his entire life. He knows it and his employers know it, but as long as he has that Certificate, Companies keep paying him to teach experienced PMs how to do it 'properly'.

        As he says, if those Companies are stupid enough to keep paying me to teach people who, on a real project, would be teaching me, who am I to refuse them?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    IT? really?

    So it had absolutely nothing to do with wanting to have people on their books for up to a year for only a months worth of work?

    As a side note, I hear that only a fraction of those scheduled to work today actually turned up!

    1. Jonathon Green
      Thumb Up

      Re: IT? really?

      "As a side note, I hear that only a fraction of those scheduled to work today actually turned up!"

      We'll, the first assumption here is that those scheduled to work today had actually been told they were rostered and/or when and where to turn up. On the basis of the accounts I've seen of the recruitment process this is by no means a safe assumption.

      Another, equally likely scenario is that the lucky recruits saw how their counterparts recruited for the jubilee bun fight were treated (i.e. chucked off a bus and left shivering and hungry under a bridge in the early hours of the morning), looked at the level of organisation displayed by G4$ thus far, assessed the likelihood of getting paid on time and correctly, and came to the (almost certainly correct) conclusion that they were about to be on the receiving end of one or both of a cock-up or deliberate shafting of epic proportions.

      Good call I'd say...

      1. Dave Bell

        Re: IT? really?

        Different companies, but the outfit that provided those "work experience" people to provide event stewarding were claiming they were preparing them for Olympic-site jobs.

        Was G4S putting too much trust in such operations being able to provide staff with the necessary certificates?

        And what sort of vetting checks were being done? Was it ever possible to get sufficient people through the security checks that were required?

        I think my teddy bear could do a better job.

  12. SimonG

    House of cards

    Some wild speculation and a bit of logic.

    Can't be that easy to deliver such a large body of trained people. I expect that you'll have a large lsit of potential persons - there will have been some assumptions around how many of these expressions of interest remain worthwhile. Chances are that the more able applicants will have obtained work elsewhere and no longer be available.

    What will be left is the dross - from which a larger percentage will have failed training or failed the CRB checks making the whole thing fail due to some over optimistic assumptions.

    We are only finding out now as G4S will only invest their time and money in people who have passed CRB check and the training - no point in having a large pool of labour stood around doing nothing except costing G4S money until they are needed - and I guess these false assumptions probably made them feel safe to bet on submitting a bid 25% under the opposition.

    I'm not trying to make excuses for G4S, nor am I connected with them - but in my experience some early miscalculations can lead to a set of assumptions (most likely in Excel) that create of house of cards. I don't know how you would test these assumptions either so you only find out its too late when its too late.

  13. SD24576

    Presumably part of the problem is that you can only start recruiting people quite close to the Olympics as the individuals have to know they will be unemployed/unoccupied over the period in question which wouldn't be possible a year or two in advance.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      One demographic that known what they'll be up to...


      G4S are w@nk.

  14. Deadmonty

    Repay the money you c**ts...

    They should return the money paid to them to provide the security. The money returned should be paid to each soldier individually, not to the MOD (who will waste it), or the CO of supporting Regiments because it will end up being used to refurbish the Officers' Mess (been there and seen that done before).

    Also, the various MPs who have received free tickets to the more prestigeous olympic events (apparently for having done such a great job) should return them as they haven't done such a great job after all.

    1. Blane Bramble

      Re: Repay the money you c**ts...

      Yup, paying the money to the soliders would be a nice gesture. No good spending it on the Officer's Mess - the majority of the guys on the ground are not going to be officers...

      1. QuinnDexter

        Re: Repay the money you c**ts...

        Hmmm. I can see the idea, and considering bus drivers and tube drivers (who just push and pull a lever) are getting additional payouts for the Olympics would seem to make sense. But then some squaddie who's based in North England gets pulled down to London to work a few hours a day and albeit probably lives in a tent for a fortnight, will still get to go drunk on LSSA and London rates for a fortnight. And if they're really lucky get entry to the big ceremonies and big events, and women's beach volleyball. (Get G4S out on the gates and turnstiles and doing the sh1t jobs!) Giving those squaddies some cash in the face of colleagues getting battered in Helmand might not be accepted too well beyond those that directly benefit, and the politicians who would use it to build kudos...

        1. Corinne

          Re: Repay the money you c**ts...

          Please don't class the bus and tube drivers together. Yes the tube drivers do just push & pull levers, on vehicles that can actually be remotely operated. Bus drivers however have to deal with their passengers face to face, and drive (no automated systems except maybe the gearbox) through traffic.

          Tube drivers are getting a massive bonus for the Olympics, most bus drivers are getting very little.

          1. Terry Barnes

            Re: Repay the money you c**ts...

            I'm not sure how useful a computer driver is when the underground train breaks down, or catches fire, or when a whole host of other issues occur. You could make the same argument for airline pilots. Those people are needed for when stuff goes wrong.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Repay the money you c**ts...

      I've heard these words "refurbished Officers' Mess", but I'm not sure what they mean.

      Clearly it's a Household Cavalry or Guards thing...

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    It doesn't need software to rota...

    Nope don't get it...

    3 people covering a single security point gives 24 hour security coverage. Multiply that up by the number of security points on the Olympic park (i.e. ticket gate needs 1 or 2 people) and you have your staff number requirement. Is someone is trying to make it harder than it needs to be?

    1. Pete 2 Silver badge

      This one needs fingers and toes

      Errrm - hang on a sec. There are 168 hours in a week. So if your staff work _about_ 40 hours per, that means (FX: takes off shoes and socks ... starts doing maths) you need 4 shifts, not 3. Maybe the G4 people did the calculations your way and that's where it went wrong?

      1. Dig

        Re: This one needs fingers and toes

        working time directives average time over 17 week period and I thought UK had some form of exemption so working more than 48 hours a week is allowed.

  16. peter 45

    As with any big Company

    There is a simple reason for this.

    A complex management structure meant different people were in charge of recruiting, interviewing, training and implementation, each with their own reporting structures and no-one was looking over the whole system.

    Senior management relied on getting a traffic light and SWOT report landing on their desks once a month and issued dire threats if the reports didn't improve.

    The temporary Middle Management listened to the threats and responded by massaging the figures and polishing their CVs for the next position.

    Finally the poor schmucks at the bottom finally manged to scream loud enough for even senior management to hear that there was no way on this God's green earth that the figures are going to be met.

    Suddenly its the 'reporting system' fault for not providing accurate information from the coalface. Not the middle management who have been massaging the figures nor the senior management inability to actually find out the truth. Oh No. The reporting system. That was it.

    Tell me anyone who has suffered traffic light and SWAT reporting that this ain't true.

    1. Steve Evans

      Re: As with any big Company

      Sure you mean "The five layers of middle management"... That's usually how it works with the big guys.

      Each layer adding nothing to the process, just making the bottom layer more and more opaque to those higher up.

  17. Colin Millar

    This is a wonderful example

    Of the go-getting attitude and superlative efficiency of the private sector in providing vital services which the public sector would miserably fail to do so.

    The proof is that with just years of notice the notoriously failureful public sector authority G4S has miserably failed to provide anything even resembling the service required at a huge cost to the taxpayer whereas with just a few hours notice the renowned global market leader Greater Manchester Police plc stepped in to fill the gap with efficiency and effectiveness and without paying someone gazilions of pounds to pass the blame onto the tea-lady.

    Now - my doctor has told me to slip into this jacket with very long arms and appears to be injecting me with something - oh it's all going warm and fuzzy in my head.


    T May, Home Sec

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    every time

    I read an artical which reaks of stupidity on behalf of the government, Theresa May is mentioned.

    1. JimmyPage Silver badge

      Re: every time

      To be fair, successive Home Secretaries have been quite scathing that the Home Office is not fit for purpose. This is not a new phenomenon.

      Why do I feel so unclean, appearing to defend Teresa May ?

      1. Colin Millar
        Black Helicopters

        Re: every time @ JimmyPage

        John Reid (who started that game of getting your excuse for being a complete failure in before you started the job) was probably the single most unfit for purpose person* ever to run a government department - until TM came along.

        *or animal even - Incitatus was less of a horse's arse than JR

        And yes - you should feel unclean - now go and wash your keyboard out with soap.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: every time @ JimmyPage

          You see, this is the problem.

          We have had failure and scandal after failure and scandal. In a government department of tens of thousands, it stretches credulity that every single time it was due to the top bod.

          Although, I must admit, a list of previous home secretaries would look out of place amongst the Voltaires and Rousseaus of the world:

          Jack Straw

          David Blunkett

          Charles Clarke

          John Reid

          Jacqui Smith

          Alan Johnson

          didn't the Duke of Wellington once say, when presented with a list of generals under him "I can only hope the enemy trembles as much as I when they read this list" ?

  19. StrictlySocial

    It can't just be me who things this cock-up is a blessing in disguise. The fewer G4S staff providing 'security' the better. I have far more trust in the military to provide security over some lazy chav who has never done a days work in their life.

    I think this BBC report sums up their staff (

    1. Tom 35

      Large numbers of recruits aren't turning up.

      I wonder if someone was just making up people to meet their numbers.

  20. Anonymous John

    Recruitment isn't the only problem.

    Large numbers of recruits aren't turning up.

  21. JimmyPage Silver badge

    On a slightly different tack

    Could such a failure to supply so many people indicate that there are fewer unemployed than we thought ? Or alternatively, shed some light on the employability of people without jobs ?

    1. John G Imrie

      Re: On a slightly different tack

      Na, it just means that they didn't look further afield than the M25

      1. fatchap
        Big Brother

        Re: On a slightly different tack

        Why would you? The folks doing the guarding would then have to be transported to and from the grounds at a time when public transport is being stretched to the limits, there is no parking at the grounds and you have not been able to hire a coach in London during Olympic fortnight for the last 4 years. Hiring around the East End is the only option, which means you are fishing from a very shallow pool.

  22. Just a geek

    "the security firm offered to fulfill the contract at a price 25% less than that of competitors"

    With 25% less staff? I wonder if that was planned from the start.... Certainly agree with the above comments about G4S blaming technology. If the tech was such an issue why wasn't it picked up when the first 1,000/2,000 were recruited?

  23. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    If in doubt, blame a computer.

    What decade is this?

  24. Senior Ugli

    Forgot to carry the 1

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Not what I heard

    From a source inside G4$.

    It seems that the real roadblock was the extreme vetting required which overloaded the (Government) agencies doing the vetting... And the large number of illegal immigrants applying for the jobs.

    The illegals came out of their interviews to be greeted by immigration officers who escorted them directly to their planes home.

    1. Andus McCoatover

      Re: Not what I heard

      Enoch Powell - where are you when Your country needs You most...

    2. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

      Re: Not what I heard

      AC @ 16:32...

      Does G4S still have the contract to do that escort (and sometimes kill) people being deported?


      The biggest failure is that the contractors are approaching the events purely as a commercial gig, which results in a bit of a lack-of-interest amongst the potential workforce (sure, if you have nothing better to do, then a four weeks of work is good). What they should have done is worked a deal whereby the staff got free or discounted tickets to events (possibly as rebate: pay above market rate for tickets, get a refund for some or all of the amount paid once you've worked your shifts).

      That would have made the gig unique and *interesting*, and would have secured commitments from workers (who would otherwise be out-of-pocket).

  26. Tim Brown 1


    Let's hope Team Terrorist (sponsored by Haliburton) got their invite to the games, to justify all this security in the first place.

    Someone in the government should have thought outside the box and designated the whole thing a NATO exercise then we could have had our european partners pick up most of the bill.

    God help us if we ever get to stage the Eurovision Song Contest Again!

  27. Andus McCoatover

    One from my sister....

    Dear Serving Soldier,

    I appreciate that you may be a bit busy at the moment, but just before I give you the sack; would you mind awfully helping out at a small sporting event we are holding in London this month? You see... I have just spent £475,000,000 on a private firm to do the security but they took the money ... and now cannot commit... I have managed to wangle an old warehouse for your accommodation & some rat packs for food, but you should be used to that by now... (gotta keep the cost down lol).

    Many thanks David Cameron.

    P.S. You're my favourites xx

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Software my fat arse

    Pure, naked greed is more likely, on the part of both G4S and the government. What exactly were the government thinking when they they thought the bid that 25% less than its nearest rival could actually deliver?

  29. This Side Up

    "To err is human;

    but to really screw things up you need a computer."

    Only I was always taught to make a rough mental calculation (or on the back of an envelope) just to make sure the result was reasonable. Otherwise it's garbage in - garbage out.

  30. The Alpha Klutz

    remember what satan has in store for you

    because thats what you will get this summer

  31. Alan Firminger

    What I don't understand

    G4S are 15000 bodies short. So 3500 troops are thrown in.

    Is one soldier checking tickets and watching for danger really the equal of 4.3 civilians ?

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A friend once worked for a car rental firm and rented a fleet car to Group 4. They lost it. The best they could do was "It's in an airport car park in England".

  33. Spiny_Norman

    Contract Security Companies

    For someone who has worked in the industry - albeit some years ago - this is no surprise. It was considered normal for a prospective officer to be interviewed in the afternoon and, in uniform, on site the same night. The client thought they had a vetted and trained officer obviously. 'Ghosted' shifts, an industrial estate 'guarded' by a mannikin in uniform placed in a car which other officers moved around at intervals, recruiting illegal immigrants & unemployables - the list goes on. Why was London 2012 going to be different? Why would anybody think it would be? and then the ask is raised for more officers and some gormless sales droid says 'no problem' - I mean what could possibly go wrong?

  34. nuked


    I heard they were on trrack with recruitment but had attrition of nearly 40%, which when viewed against a backdrop of their volume for this project, is more than a staggering statistic.

  35. Nick Ryan Silver badge

    Private vs Public

    When it comes to large organisations, unless they grow well and the people at the top are very good (usually they aren't that great at anything except CV polishing), then there's often little difference between the inefficiencies of large Private and Public organisations.

    The problem usually relates to far too many layers of management, far too much reliance on KPI statistics to "prove" compliance (note: this is different to "success") and far too few people actually doing the work that is meant to be core to the organisation.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Private vs Public

      I somehow read that as "Pirate vs Pubic" ....

  36. NogginTheNog

    Single point of failure

    Personally when I heard this the other day I was surprised the contract hadn't been given to at least 2 different suppliers. Happens quite often, and protects a bit against fuckups like this?

This topic is closed for new posts.