Li, B; Akintoye, A; Edwards, P and Hardcastle, C (2004) Risk treatment preferences for PPP/PFI construction projects in the UK. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 20th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2004, Edinburgh, UK.
Abstract
Public private partnerships (PPP) and the Private Finance Initiative (PFI) in the United Kingdom purport to transfer project risk to the private sector. This raises the question as to what treatment options are available and preferred for these risks. A questionnaire survey, using a catalogue of 46 risks categorised under three risk meta- levels, explored the perceptions of people involved in PPP/PFI construction projects in the UK. The findings indicate that risk avoidance and risk reduction are the two least preferred treatment options, compared with risk retention and risk transfer. Retention of the risks allocated to either the public or the private sectors is preferred for dealing with political and social risk at the macro-risk level; for the demand and residual risks at the meso-risk level, and for all of the micro-level risks.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | project procurement; public/private partnerships; PPP; private finance initiative; PFI; risk management; risk treatment |
| Index terms: | preference, option, project procurement, public private partnership, private finance initiative, construction project, risk management, risk retention, questionnaire, United Kingdom, private sector, partnership, survey, retention, risk reduction |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, data collection methods, contractual arrangements, financial risk, Geography, production management, decision-making and reasoning, management, industry analysis, decision analysis, partnership management |
| Topics: | Human Resources, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management, Business Strategy |
| 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