Zhang, X (2006) Factor analysis of public clients' best-value objective in public-privately partnered infrastructure projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(9), pp. 956-965. ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Best value is the ultimate goal of the public client in infrastructure development through public-private partnerships (PPPs). A best-value approach necessitates a sound best-value source selection methodology, which encourages creativity and innovation from the private sector and allows the public sector to make a right tradeoff between cost and noncost criteria in tender evaluation. Through a factor analysis of the relative significance of the best-value contributing factors (BVCFs) based on a previous questionnaire survey of international PPP experts, this paper has determined the major common dimensions of the public clients' best-value objective in infrastructure development and the key BVCFs that measure each of these dimensions. Statistical tests confirm the adequacy and quality of the survey, the soundness of the factor analysis and the internal consistency of the BVCFs, and they also indicate that the public, private, and academic sectors consider BVCFs rather similarly. The establishment of the best-value objective dimensions and the BVCFs that measure each of these dimensions would direct and concentrate the efforts of the private sector in crafting innovative project delivery models to offer the best value, the public sector in efficiently evaluating project proposals to award a defensible contract, and the consequently formed PPPs in continuously enhancing the best-value objective through long-term contractual arrangements.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | infrastructure; partnership; private sector; privatization |
| Index terms: | proposal, tradeoff, infrastructure development, survey, methodology, questionnaire, tender evaluation, statistical test, creativity, partnership, private sector, public sector, best value, factor analysis, dimension, infrastructure project, privatization, public client, project delivery |
| Subjects: | project planning, bidding, health monitoring assessment and metrics, economic analysis, project delivery, data collection methods, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, administrative law, innovation and creative processes, statistical analysis, partnership management, decision analysis, sociology, infrastructure engineering, tendering, research methods |
| Topics: | Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Procurement, Design Practice, Legal Issues |
| 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