Ullah, F and Thaheem, M J (2018) Concession period of public private partnership projects: Industry-academia gap analysis. International Journal of Construction Management, 18(5), pp. 418-429. ISSN 1562-3599
Abstract
With increasing global adoption, various critical aspects of public–private partnership (PPP) concessions are highlighted. One such aspect is the way academia and industry perceive and weigh different critical success factors (CSFs) of PPP concession. Due to difference of perception, considerable temporal as well as opinion gap exists between the two knowledge streams, leading to improper resource allocation and inadequate decision-making. This study identifies CSFs and quantifies the gap between the two streams using a detailed methodology of identifying CSFs from extensive literature review published during period 2005–2015, and ranking those CSFs separately through questionnaire surveys from 60 industrial and 56 academic experts having thorough experience of various types of PPP. Based upon responses, 8–9 years' gap between both streams is found. For 18% CSFs, opinion difference is greater than 50% pointing to a weaker collaboration. Decision-makers can understand the gap between both streams and develop policy framework for their collaboration. Better resource management can be ensured leading to improved chances of project success. Academia can expand upon the identified CSFs and explore their interactions on individual and cumulative levels. This will bridge gap and induce the ever desired mutualism between the two streams.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | concession period; critical success factors; industry–academia linkages; knowledge gap; public–private partnership |
| Index terms: | academia, interaction, public private partnership, resource management, resource allocation, concession period, gap analysis, project success, linkage, partnership, collaboration, stream, decision-making, methodology, questionnaire, critical success factor, literature review, survey |
| Subjects: | control systems, business, data collection methods, resource management, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, project management theory and practice, water management, research methods, performance measurement, contract structure, management, behavioral psychology, educational institutions, decision analysis, partnership management |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Project Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Sustainability, Procurement, Site Management, Organizational Design, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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