Ken Livingstone's both right and wrong about the need for contingency in the Olympic Budget. But in this case he needs to learn when to keep shtum.

I must have been prescient last week when I wrote about the Olympic budget (see here) - in the last seven days the debate has really kicked-off in the press. A number of people and organisations are taking entrenched positions, mainly it would seem for political reasons. Perhaps the most intriguing of these is that of the Mayor of London who is insistent that there be no contingency in the budget.

Now contingency, and this harks back to my previous comments, is simply a way of providing for the fact that, five years out, we can't possibly have anticipated every possible cost or variable. Mr Livingstone is rightly concerned that by including a substantial contingency in the budget there will be a "licence to overspend" as contractors eye greedily the additional money in the pot. I'm afraid he's got a point. But what possessed him (and the others) to hold the contingency debate in public is beyond me. By all means have a contingency - but letting the world know how much money you've set aside for the unexpected goes beyond incomptetence, into the realm of rank stupidity.

I'm not completely naive. I do understand that this is a matter of public interest and that the people involved are accustomed to conducting their arguments in the full-on glare of media scrutiny. However, once more we have an example of political posturing and point-scoring taking precedence over the simple principles of good project management. Personally, I think the Treasury's 60% contingency figure is the least they'll need. But unlike them... I'd have put the funds aside - and then kept shtum.

We offer some 'top-tips' for getting the most out of your contact centre operations in CallCentre Helper. Follow this link...