Cheah, C Y J and Liu, J (2005) Real option evaluation of complex infrastructure projects: The case of dabhol power. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 10(1), pp. 55-68. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
Development of large-scale infrastructure projects that solicits the support of private capital is no longer a new phenomenon. This is commonly implemented using governance arrangements such as Build-Operate-Transfer and other technical variations of public-private partnerships. Frequently, concessions and guarantees are included in the contract in order to protect the interests of some project stakeholders. Flexibilities may also be built into the terms and conditions, thus allowing participants to react to changes that could occur during the implementation stage. All these features essentially reallocate risks and rewards within the contract, the effects of which may not be quantified by conventional evaluation methods such as the Net Present Value method. Real option (RO) modelling has been identified as a superior approach, although the method is more complicated and cases of application to complex infrastructure projects remain to be limited. In this paper, discrete-time RO models are used to evaluate several options found in the Dabhol Power Project in India. Limitations and challenges in modelling these options are also discussed. Overall, the RO approach demonstrates a great promise in capturing and evaluating flexibilities. The case study however shows that some implementation issues need to be overcome before RO can be commonly and practically applied to the infrastructural context.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | complex infrastructure projects; concessions; public-private partnerships; real options |
| Index terms: | case study, partnership, implementation, variation, project stakeholder, option, modelling, governance, guarantee, net present value, real option, infrastructure project, build-operate-transfer, India |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, partnership management, analytical methods, infrastructure and transport systems, data collection methods, contractual condition, Geography, economic analysis, business, contract structure, decision analysis, sociology |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Procurement, Governance, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Engineering Principles |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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