Cheung, E; Loosemore, M and Chandra, D C (2014) Assessing risk dynamics in public private partnership projects. In: Raiden, A and Aboagye-Nimo, E (eds.) Proceedings of 30th Annual ARCOM Conference, 1-3 September 2014, Portsmouth, UK.
Abstract
There have been many instances of unsuccessful public private partnership (PPP) projects. Traditional reductionist approaches to risk assessment appear inadequate to manage the complex and dynamic interdependencies which exist on such complex projects. Systems dynamics methods have been used extensively outside construction to assess risk in other complex systems and theoretically show great promise in PPP projects. However, interviews with sixteen senior construction professionals with experience of PPPs, while indicating openness to new approaches, revealed significant short-comings in adopting such an approach in this context. It is concluded that if systems dynamics is to be used as a new way of assessing risk on Public Private Partnership projects, existing dependence on linear methods needs to be broken through more education about the merits of system thinking.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | risk; systems; public private partnerships |
| Index terms: | complex project, complex system, public private partnership, risk assessment, dynamics, systems dynamics, construction professional, interview |
| Subjects: | data collection methods, financial risk, strategic project management, contractual arrangements, systems engineering, decision-making and optimization, professional development |
| Topics: | Cost Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Procurement, Project Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCE |
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