Van Buiten, M and Hartmann, A (2015) Asset management perspective on the duration of public-private partnership contracts: Cost-control trade-off? Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 141(3), ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
The risk-incentive model of principal-agent relations and its extensions to infrastructural public-private partnerships outline the efficiency implications of parameters such as contract duration. The predominant focus on individual contracts is of limited use for public agencies that need to allocate their resources efficiently at the level of the entire asset network. This study therefore adopts an asset management perspective on the issue of contract duration in public-private partnership (PPP) contracts. In so doing, this research aims to add to the understanding of asset network level effects of important contractual parameters such as contract duration. Empirical material from the Netherlands illustrates that public professionals tend to think about contract duration in terms of a network cost-network control trade-off. From the data, a hierarchical set of criteria deemed relevant for determination of contract duration is elaborated that ultimately supports network accessibility. Limitations, managerial implications, and suggestions for future research are discussed.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | asset management; contract duration; contracting; public-private partnership |
| Index terms: | asset management, duration, agency, efficiency, partnership, Netherlands, accessibility, agent |
| Subjects: | asset management, performance management, project controls, Geography, practitioner, partnership management, inclusive design, sociology |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Design Practice, Stakeholder Management, Time Control, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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