Bakhtawar, B; Thaheem, M J; Arshad, H and Qadeer, A (2018) How to embrace the stakeholder in public private partnership decision-making? A theoretical discourse. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 34th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2018, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
Large infrastructure projects are inherently complex, multifaceted and multiparty. Owing to their peculiar deliver system, which is mostly in the form of public-private-partnership (PPP), success of these projects cannot be measured simply through a definite delivery but goes far beyond into sustainability realm. Based on such a perspective, the project success interpretation is transformed from iron-triangle to a complex mesh of key performance indicators (KPIs). These KPIs are the basis of performance measurement of PPP projects due to long-term nature and output-based specification of this procurement system. In this regard, one of the most important performance indicators is stakeholder satisfaction, which comes with its own complexity in interpretation. The involvement and importance of multiple stakeholders in PPP not only fluctuate through the different life-cycle phases but also depend on their individual vested interest in the project. Thus, conflicting interests and information asymmetry in stakeholder relationships become major issues often resulting into litigation, renegotiation or, even worse, project failure. This makes the PPP decision-making highly fragmented, contextual and dynamic. Responding to the demand for developing long-lasting partnerships, research and development in PPP has started addressing issues of relationship management, innovations in the PPP contracting model and behavioral dynamics such as principal-agent problem. However, an intricate effort in conducting a stakeholder analysis for PPP has not been sufficiently reported. This study, therefore, attempts to identify different PPP stakeholders and their varying interests in different constraints of decision-making. In doing so, literature is reviewed to identify the relevant decision factors vis-à-vis stakeholder types in various PPP life-cycle phases to produce an integrated interest matrix. The findings will assist decision makers in effective management of PPP stakeholders and researchers in pursuing integrational assessment of PPP stakeholders.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | conflict emergence; public-private-partnership; relationship dynamics; stakeholder identification; complex systems |
| Index terms: | relationship management, emergence, complex system, stakeholder satisfaction, performance indicator, large infrastructure project, performance measurement, information asymmetry, research and development, stakeholder identification, complexity, project success, project failure, partnership, litigation, procurement system, public private partnership, decision-making, agent, key performance indicator, stakeholder analysis, dynamics, specification |
| Subjects: | infrastructure engineering, practitioner, dispute resolution, contractual condition, project completion, partnership management, decision analysis, project management theory and practice, contractual arrangements, research management, performance measurement, management, systems engineering, project delivery, participation process, performance management, transaction economics |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Engineering Principles, Project Management, Procurement, Legal Issues, Human Resources, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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