Li, X; Yuan, J; Liu, X; Wang, G and Wang, Q C (2024) The effects of joint-contract functions on PPP project value creation: A mediation model. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 31(10), pp. 4162-4183. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: With the continuous improvement of public–private partnership (PPP) projects, the participants' value creation goals are not only limited to achieving the basic performance objectives but also to realising value added. However, the effect of traditional contract management on realising the value creation objectives of PPP projects is limited. According to the view of multifunctional contract, joint-contract functions that integrate contract control and flexibility are likely to be effective in enhancing the value creation of PPP projects. This study aims to explore the effects of joint-contract functions on PPP project value creation and relevant influencing mechanism by investigating the mediating effect of in-role behaviour and extra-role behaviour. Design/methodology/approach: After collecting 258 valid questionnaires from PPP professionals in China, this study used structural equation modelling to validate the hypotheses. Findings: Contract control and flexibility can improve PPP project value creation. Specifically, contract control improves the achievement of the basic contract objectives of PPP projects, whereas contract flexibility enhances the achievement of the value-added of PPP projects. Moreover, only in-role behaviour mediates the effect of contract control on value creation. In addition, the mediating effect of extra-role behaviour on the impact of contract flexibility on value creation is stronger than that of in-role behaviour. The mediating effect of in- and extra-role behaviour is mainly reflected in the realisation of basic and value-added performance, respectively. Research implications: The findings of this study can help realise value creation in three ways. Firstly, new perspectives for PPP project value creation should be proposed by combining the improvement of contract objectives and the realisation of the participants' implicit demands. Secondly, the effects of different contract functions on value creation should be analysed instead of a single dimension of contractual governance. Thirdly, the mediating effects of different types of cooperation behaviour that may influence the relationship between contractual governance and value creation should be evaluated. Originality/value: This study verifies the impacts of different contract functions on PPP project value creation. In addition, cooperative behaviour is embedded as a mediating variable, and the mediated transmission path from contract function to cooperative behaviour and further to PPP project value creation is systematically analysed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | cooperative behaviour; joint-contract function; public–private partnership; value creation |
| Index terms: | dimension, governance, continuous improvement, partnership, methodology, value creation, questionnaire, cooperation, China, cooperative behaviour, contract management, mediation, structural equation modelling |
| Subjects: | contract management, Geography, research methods, performance measurement, economic development, statistical analysis, partnership management, dispute resolution, business, data collection methods, health monitoring assessment and metrics, psychology |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Contract Administration, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Governance, Sustainability, Stakeholder Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here