Smith, N J and Gannon, M (2008) Political risk in light rail transit PPP projects. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 161(4), pp. 179-185. ISSN 17514312
Abstract
Since 2003 public-private partnerships (PPPs) have represented between 10 and 13.5% of the total investment in public services in the UK. The macro-economic and political benefits of PPPs were among the key drivers for central government's decision to promote this form of procurement to improve UK public services. Political support for a PPP project is critical and is frequently cited as the most important critical success factor. This paper investigates the significance of political support and reviews the treatment of political risk in a business case by the public sector project sponsor for major UK-based light rail transit PPP projects during their development stage. The investigation demonstrates that in the early project stages it is not traditional quantitative Monte Carlo risk analysis that is important; rather it is the identification and representation of political support within a business case together with an understanding of how this information is then used to inform critical project decisions.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | public-private partnerships; railway systems; risk & probability analysis |
| Index terms: | project sponsor, probability analysis, risk analysis, critical success factor, business case, public services, partnership, public sector, investigation, railway system |
| Subjects: | strategic project management, environmental hazards, control systems, data collection methods, infrastructure and transport systems, administrative law, statistical analysis, partnership management, sociology |
| Topics: | Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Sustainability, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Legal Issues |
| 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