Kavishe, N and Chileshe, N (2019) Readiness assessment of public-private partnerships implementation within Tanzanian housing projects: Challenges, strategies and approaches. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 35th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2019, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
Despite the advocated benefits of housing project public-private partnerships (PPPs) such as alleviating the housing problems within the developing countries, the PPPs implementation has yielded mixed results with a number of developing countries facing project management challenges, including high termination rates of PPPs projects. This clearly demonstrates a need for undertaking more PPP empirical studies around the readiness assessment for implementing PPPs. To address the identified knowledge gaps, this study which is underpinned by the theoretical lenses of innovation diffusion theory, seeks to assess and investigate issues around the Tanzanian practitioner’s readiness for PPP adoption. This research is empirically informed from semi-structured interviews with ten public and private sector practitioners within the Tanzania housing sector. The standard qualitative technique of content analysis was used for the data as collected. The findings show that the main 4 challenges, which are nested within the structural, relational and cognitive issues affecting the readiness process as: (i) lack of awareness and usage of PPPs framework models during the feasibility and subsequent implementation process; (ii) limited knowledge and skills required for PPPs practitioners exacerbated by poor capacity building; (iii) lack of engagement of experts during the viability and assessment process; and (iv) poor selection process of private partners giving rising to unsolicited proposals. The main readiness strategies and approaches were structured around the following: (i) timing and preparation for adoption of strategies; (ii) undertaking of feasibility studies; (iii) usage of PPP frameworks; (iv) utilisation of experts in the assessment process; (v) enhanced capacity building; and (vi) selection of private partners. The results of this study foster a better understanding of the readiness assessment strategies and approaches for successfully implementing PPPs in housing projects. Subsequently, this could lead to improved performance outcomes within a sector and economy acknowledged as having earlier PPPs project terminations
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | readiness assessment; project management; public-private partnership; innovation diffusion; housing projects; Tanzania |
| Index terms: | Tanzania, performance outcome, interview, innovation diffusion, developing country, feasibility study, proposal, capacity building, housing project, strategy, content analysis, partnership, private sector, readiness assessment, practitioner, empirical study, housing, project management, implementation |
| Subjects: | construction type, risk assessment, social and economic development, data collection methods, practitioner, value management, design stages, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, project planning, management, research methods, Geography, project management theory and practice, development economics, housing and residential development, partnership management, sociology, industry analysis |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Stakeholder Management, Roles and Professions, Risk Management, Construction Technology, Procurement, Design Practice, Urban Studies, Human Resources, International Construction |
| 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