Shrestha, B (2024) Assessment of success factors and comparative analysis of public private partnership (P3) project performances against design-build and design-bid-build project delivery. PhD thesis, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, USA.
Abstract
Public-private partnerships (P3s) projects have gained widespread popularity in both developed and developing countries due to their ability to access new financing sources and shift specific project risks to the private sector. P3s has been an active area of research with a particular focus on the concept of Critical Success Factors (CSF). The growing interest and the diverse outcomes associated with P3s emphasize the need for a thorough investigation into the factors that contribute to successful P3 projects. This study focused on identifying the CSFs for P3 highway and building projects towards project objectives of achieving cost efficiency and schedule advantage using literature reviews and questionnaire survey. Additionally, the study aimed to conduct an empirical analysis by comparing cost and schedule performances of P3 projects with design-build (DB) and design-bid-build (DBB) highway and building projects. To collect data regarding critical success factors relevant to real projects in the United States, the research has employed a questionnaire survey. This survey was distributed to participants involved in P3 highway and building projects who provided ratings for the identified CSFs relevant to their respective projects. Furthermore, the study extended its data collection efforts to include DB and DBB highway and building projects of similar size and scope, to facilitate a comparative analysis enabling an assessment of cost and schedule effectiveness of these three project delivery methods. The study concluded that the P3 highway projects in the United States have better cost performance compared to DB and DBB projects. Similarly, P3 building projects exhibit better cost and schedule performance in comparison to DB and DBB projects while no statistically significant difference was found in schedule performances between P3 and DB projects. It is hoped that the research findings will assist the public owners to ensure the success of their future P3 endeavors, particularly in terms of cost and schedule performances. The study outcomes can hold potential in public and private sectors by providing insights into how specific critical factors can be applied to enhance the execution of P3 method in both highway and building construction projects.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Thesis advisor: | Shrestha, P P |
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | highway; developing countries; financing; project delivery; public private partnerships; United States; questionnaire survey; private sector; delivery method; partnership; owner; critical success factor; project performance |
| Index terms: | questionnaire, critical success factor, cost efficiency, financing, cost performance, United States, developing country, schedule performance, building construction, literature review, success factor, comparative analysis, survey, public owner, highway construction, effectiveness, investigation, project performance, project delivery, public private partnership, owner, partnership, private sector, delivery method, design-bid-build, critical factor |
| Subjects: | project management theory and practice, performance management, civil engineering, economics, industry analysis, sociology, partnership management, delivery method, project controls, control systems, data collection methods, risk assessment, project delivery, health monitoring assessment and metrics, data analysis and analytics, development economics, Geography, building construction, economic analysis, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Time Control, International Construction, Stakeholder Management, Construction Technology, Business Strategy, Cost Management, Research Practice, Quality Management, Risk Management, Procurement, Health and Safety, Project Management, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles |
| 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