Henjewele, C; Sun, M and Fewings, P (2011) Value for money optimisation and sustainability in PFI projects. In: Egbu, C and Lou, E C W (eds.) Proceedings of 27th Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2011, Bristol, UK.
Abstract
Since 1992, the public sector in the UK has used Private Finance Initiative (PFI) to finance major infrastructure projects and to secure Value for Money. PFI is claimed to have successfully minimised construction risks and delivered projects with high certainty in the time, cost, quality, and client satisfaction. However, recent concerns on poor returns have increased pressure to demonstrate that expectations will be consistent vis-à-vis their ability to give long term VFM. This paper is based on a research to explore the VFM uncertainty of PFI projects and establish causes hitherto. The research investigated variations in costs, time, and client requirements from the strategic business case stage through to the operational phase. Data collection methods include a documentary analysis of full business cases of five PFI projects and published reports, and a questionnaire survey of 44 PFI projects in the UK. Analysis shows in many PFI projects; VFM results are not always constant because costs, time and client requirements change continuously in the project s lifecycle. Early warnings on VFM variations are not systematically exploited due to lack of consistent frameworks. The current PFI implementation framework is prescriptive of procedures and assumes the appraisers have the right information to carryout VFM assessment at all recommended stages. The study subsequently proposed a model, which seeks to improve the delivery of PFI projects by optimising value for money and sustaining it throughout the project s lifecycle
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | performance; private finance initiative; uncertainty; value for money |
| Index terms: | early warning, survey, public sector, value-for-money, business case, implementation, infrastructure project, documentary analysis, client requirements, client satisfaction, questionnaire, lifecycle, variation, private finance initiative |
| Subjects: | strategic project management, project delivery, data science, contractual arrangements, client relations, data collection methods, administrative law, infrastructure and transport systems, professional development, evaluation, financial risk, contractual condition |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Value Management, Legal Issues, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Information Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Cost Management |
| 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