Yamaguchi, H; Uher, T E and Runeson, G (2002) Negotiation analysis of risk allocation for PFI projects. In: Greenwood, D (ed.) Proceedings of 18th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2002, Northumbria, UK.
Abstract
Private Finance Initiative (PFI) is characterized by complex negotiations regarding risk allocation. Unlike most previous investigations, this paper approaches the investigation of the risk allocation negotiation in a consistent manner. It explores theoretical implications of risk allocation negotiations for PFI projects between the government client and the private PFI promoter within the framework of negotiation analysis. The investigation focuses on the effect of stakeholders' risk attitude on the negotiation space by applying a risk allocation model to obtain the negotiation space. The investigation identifies that the stakeholders may become contradictory in revealing information on their respective levels of risk aversion before and during the negotiation. Negotiation analysis with a theoretical model provides practical implications for risk allocation negotiations in PFI projects.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision analysis; negotiation; private finance initiative; risk allocation |
| Index terms: | promoter, negotiation, private finance initiative, risk allocation, investigation, decision analysis, risk attitude |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, contractual arrangements, financial risk, decision-making and reasoning, conflict resolution, decision analysis, sociology |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Research Practice, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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