Babatunde, S (2015) Developing public private partnership strategy for infrastructure delivery in Nigeria. PhD thesis, Northumbria University, UK.
Abstract
The success of any public-private partnership (PPP) project in a country is largely dependent on the country’s maturity on critical success factors (CSFs) that made PPP projects successful. Thus, identification of metrics and standards for measuring the maturity of stakeholder organisations on CSFs for PPP projects implementation remains a challenge. Though studies on CSFs for PPP projects abound, approaches of using CSFs to develop PPP process maturity received scarce attention. Against this backdrop, this research becomes imperative to create efficient and transparent operational strategies with a view to using CSFs to develop process maturity for stakeholder organisations in PPP projects in Nigeria. Data for the research were obtained through mixed methods approach namely: quantitative and qualitative approaches. Questionnaires were administered on five different stakeholder organisations comprised public sector authorities (i.e. ministries, department, and agencies), concessionaires, local lenders/banks, consultants, and contractors involved in different PPP projects implementation in Nigeria. The data collected were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Also, the qualitative approach was conducted through an expert forum and six PPP infrastructure project case studies in Lagos metropolis, Nigeria. The expert forum was constituted to refine and verify the conceptual framework developed. Also, structured interviews were conducted with primary stakeholders in the six PPP infrastructure project case studies in the study area. The research identified fourteen CSFs that made PPP infrastructure projects successful in Nigeria. These CSFs were employed for capability maturity levels definition ranging from level 1(Ad hoc) to level 5(Optimising) in accordance to Capability Maturity Model (CMM) concept. This led to the development of stakeholder organisations capability enhancement framework (SOCEF) in PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria. The framework was validated by PPP experts to ensure it is comprehensive, objective, practical, replicable, reliable, and suitable for use in Nigeria. Thus, a quantitative assessment tool was developed with the framework in assessing the current capability maturity levels of stakeholder organisations involved in PPP infrastructure projects on fourteen CSFs identified in this research. The findings revealed that public sector organisations were between maturity level 1 and maturity level 2 (out of 5 maturity levels) on CSFs applicable to them. The majority of the private sector organisations were in maturity level 2 on CSFs associated with them. It is established in this research that Nigeria’s maturity is between maturity level 1 and maturity level 2 (out of 5 maturity levels) on CSFs that made PPP infrastructure projects successful. The findings emanated from this research provided both the theoretical and practical contributions to knowledge. The theoretical contributions include the methodology for developing capability maturity levels in PPPs, new insights into the usefulness of CSFs in PPP projects, and contributed to the wider body of knowledge of process improvement in the construction industry at large. The practical contributions are the capability level definitions and enhancement framework for PPP practice, and the specific CSFs for PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria. The framework developed in this research had provided the benchmark for the identification of methodical approach and standard to process improvement in PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria. It is believed that the framework would provide a useful guide and roadmaps for improvement by indicating ‘what' needs to be done by stakeholder organisations involved in PPP projects in achieving higher capability maturity levels on identified CSFs for PPP projects in Nigeria and developing countries at large. Thus, the framework could be used to benchmark future studies.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Udeaja, C and Zhou, L |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | concession; critical success factor; developing countries; infrastructure; interview; Nigeria; partnership; private sector; public sector; stakeholders |
| Index terms: | statistics, infrastructure project, implementation, construction industry, future study, public private partnership, Lagos, partnership, private sector, qualitative approach, public sector, Nigeria, mixed method, case study, maturity level, agency, conceptual framework, body of knowledge, critical success factor, private sector organization, capability maturity model, methodology, questionnaire, strategy, infrastructure delivery, public sector organization, interview, developing country, process improvement, concessionaire |
| Subjects: | management, sociology, partnership management, industry analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, administrative law, research design and methodology, mathematical modelling, data collection methods, control systems, research methods, theoretical framing, evaluation, development economics, Geography, organization, contract type, strategic project management, contractual arrangements, knowledge management |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Procurement, Geographical Context, Project Management, Engineering Principles, International Construction, Stakeholder Management, Business Strategy, Research Practice, Information Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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