Li, B; Akintoye, A and Hardcastle, C (2002) Risks and risk treatments in public private partnership projects. In: Greenwood, D (ed.) Proceedings of 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2002, Northumbria, UK.
Abstract
Public Private Partnership (PPP)/Private Finance Initiative (PFI) projects have been increasingly used in the public sector services and infrastructure provisions in the UK since the last decade. However, there are many risks and uncertainties associated with PPP projects. Risk management is a widely recognized technique in helping decision making and project management. The experiences of private financed projects across the world have suggested that the risks within PPPs are more complicated under the innovative procurement arrangement. The hierarchical structure - main, principal and individual risk - had been used to identify and organize the risk factors within PPP projects. The three main risk categories have been highlighted as macro, meso and micro. Forty-six risk factors associated PPP projects have been identified from literature reviews. This study was conducted through a questionnaire survey to produce criticality of risk factors for PPP projects, and options for risk treatment techniques on risk factor basis. Statistic analyses were carried out using descriptive analysis (mean value analysis and ranking) and informative analysis using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results show that three major categories of risk have different impacts on PPP projects. Most of the critical risks belong to the meso (project) level. Micro risk has minor to moderate impact on PPP projects, while the macro level risks range in a wider spectrum. The results also show that the public and private sectors have differential opinions of the risk factors. Results also indicate that among four general risk treatment measures, risk avoidance and risk reduction are seldom used compared with risk retention and risk transfer. Risk retention of the risks assigned to both public and private sectors is the preferred measure for dealing with the less critical risks, while the private sector prefers to transfer the critical risk to third parties.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | public private partnerships; risk; risk treatment |
| Index terms: | option, project management, public private partnership, risk factor, risk retention, risk management, questionnaire, decision-making, private finance initiative, survey, public sector, value analysis, literature review, private sector, risk reduction, variance |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, data collection methods, risk assessment, decision analysis, measurement and scaling, administrative law, industry analysis, environmental hazards, financial analysis, financial risk, project management theory and practice |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Procurement, Risk Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Legal Issues |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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