Edkins, A J and Smyth, H J (2006) The imperative of trust in PPPs: Evaluations from the provision of 'full service' contracts. Journal of Construction Procurement, 12(1),
Abstract
This exploratory paper will draw on case-based data from one of the most complex areas of the application of Private Public Partnerships (PPPs) in the UK. The value of the paper is that it accesses guarded data on live contractual relationships in ongoing complex PPP type contracts. This data captures the perceptions of private sector consortium players. It allows the analysis of how a consortium uses trust between the parties at the aggregate and relational level. The paper then considers the capacity to learn how to work as a unified entity to accept and to manage the 'basket' of transferred risks under complex forms of contract at the heart of PPPs. The method is comparative, taking two different PPP contractual frameworks, analysing relationship characteristics present in contracts and relational performance. Trust and its characteristics, namely the presence or absence of either self-interested or socially orientated trust (Lyons and Mehta 1997) is presented. From this evidence, it is found that a Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO) contract fosters better trust that the comparator Design-Build-Operate contract. Recommendations are posited for both possible improvements to practice and for establishing what type of contractual frameworks and forms are working best in relational contracting.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accountability, performance, public private partnership, relational contracting, relationship management, trust |
| Index terms: | consortium, relational contracting, aggregate, private sector, partnership, relationship management, form of contract, presence, heart, public private partnership, accountability, contractual relationship, evidence, design-build-finance-operate |
| Subjects: | management, industry analysis, partnership management, materials science, contractual relationship, evaluation and assessment methods, contractual arrangements, environmental science, medical science and clinical practice, liability law |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Procurement, Sustainability, Human Resources, Contract Administration, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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