Alarcón-Ramirez, D; Oliveros-Romero, J and Mahn, D (2026) Performance comparison of public–private partnerships and traditionally procured hospitals. Construction Management and Economics, 44(2), pp. 79-97. ISSN 0144-6193
Abstract
This study aims to understand the extent to which public–private partnership (PPP) and traditional procured (TP) models impact the performance of hospital infrastructure projects. We conduct a case study analysis that combines both qualitative and quantitative approaches, utilising primary and secondary data sources, including interviews, contracts, and operational records, to examine the perspectives of various stakeholders on the different ways hospitals manage their contracts. The results identify six main themes that define their performance differences: service quality and operations, the impact of bureaucracy on decision-making, dispute resolution, differences in construction times, the financing and payment models, and the process of making contract modifications and renegotiations. This study suggests that, in the context of hospital projects, the PPP model tends to outperform the TP model across multiple dimensions, as the evidence broadly supports the theory of PPPs and their anticipated benefits. The findings of this research may encourage debate and reflection on public–private collaboration in the health sector, thereby contributing to the development of policies and strategies that optimise the quality and efficiency of hospital services for the benefit of society.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | hospitals; project management; public sector comparator; public–private partnership |
| Index terms: | secondary data, public sector, dispute, partnership, case study, efficiency, construction time, project management, resolution, dimension, infrastructure project, reflection, strategy, society, interview, contract modification, financing, evidence, service quality, collaboration, decision-making |
| Subjects: | professional development, project management theory and practice, performance management, management, performance measurement, administrative law, infrastructure and transport systems, decision analysis, partnership management, conflict resolution, project controls, dispute resolution, data collection methods, health monitoring assessment and metrics, contract management, communities and social development, evaluation and assessment methods, economic analysis |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Legal Issues, Risk Management, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Contract Administration, Time Control, Organizational Design, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Information Management, Business Strategy |
| 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