Sundaraj, G and Eaton, D (2013) Quantifying robustness in PFIs. Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, 18(1), pp. 26-52. ISSN 1366-4387
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to define and quantify the term robustness within the context of a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) project environment from the perspective of the Granting Authority. The paper is conceptual, based on conceptual generalisations. The paper considers the theory of systems thinking within PFI procurement. This is further integrated with the concept of robustness and resilience used extensively in the ecology discipline. Combining the two, this paper presents a mathematical approach of quantifying robustness in PFI projects. An analytical model is used to support the mathematical analysis to quantify and define robustness. The quantifying of robustness is based on the principal assumptions presented in the paper. The principal assumptions provide an ideal situation which is necessary to pursue and develop the proposed approach to quantify robustness. Changes to the assumptions may affect the generalisability of the approach. The paper provides a greater definition to robustness within PFI projects and the possibility of quantifying robustness to better monitor and manage the characteristic.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | partnership; private finance initiative; procurement; public private partnership; robustness |
| Index terms: | mathematical analysis, analytical model, private finance initiative, systems thinking, public private partnership, ecology, partnership |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, environmental science, analytical methods, partnership management, theoretical framing |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Sustainability |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 CT |
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