Ng, A and Loosemore, M (2006) Risk allocation in public private partnership (PPP) projects: The new southern railway project. In: Boyd, D (ed.) Proceedings of 22nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 4-6 September 2006, Birmingham, UK.
Abstract
The technical, legal, political and economic complexity of PPP projects and the range of constituencies involved, make the optimal allocation of risk problematic. Too often, risks are under estimated and allocated to parties without the knowledge, resources and capabilities to manage them effectively. This paper presents a case study of the controversial $920 million New Southern Railway project in Sydney, Australia. It demonstrates the complexity and obscurity of risks facing such projects and the difficulties in distributing them appropriately. The paper concludes with a series of recommendations to better manage risks in such projects.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | community; infrastructure; PPP projects; risk allocation; risk management |
| Index terms: | Australia, risk management, public private partnership, case study, complexity, risk allocation |
| Subjects: | risk assessment, data collection methods, Geography, financial risk, contractual arrangements, systems engineering |
| Topics: | Geographical Context, Risk Management, Cost Management, Procurement, Engineering Principles, Research Practice |
| 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