Hartwell, J C; Upadhyay, Y and Sourani, A (2019) Influential factors of life cycle management in education PFI projects. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 9(2), pp. 302-314. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose: It has been claimed that the private finance initiative (PFI) provides value for money in the overall life of the project through the lifecycle costing (LCC) process under the umbrella of lifecycle management (LCM). The available literature points to the fact that LCC is very important in getting value for money from PFI projects. However, there is no literature available on the effect of the use of LCM in PFI projects in the UK. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore the factors that influence the success of LCM in educational PFI projects. Design/methodology/approach: The paper adopts a post-positivist approach to literature review. Purposive sampling is utilised with a mixed methodological approach. 6 qualitative inductive interviews offer key themes, which are further investigated using quantitative deductive questionnaires, of which 35 were issued and 26 were returned. Findings: The paper provides empirical insights about the key success factors of LCM in the education sector. The results highlight the necessity of quality standardized data collection in a big data form. It highlights the need for a cultural shift from short- to long-term profit maximisation and service provision by the use of LCM in the PFI education sector. Research limitations/implications: A purposive sample was used to maximise the validity of data collection. Although this method has garnered concise and clear results, it is understood that this study is limited into a niche sector and a set of subsequently niche professionals. It is recommended that a larger sample be utilised and the spectrum of PFI sectors be opened up to further explore the topic. Practical implications: Further investigations across different sectors of PFI project may be viewed as a good comparison, sectors such as health, accommodation and prisons. Gathering responses across all sector types could have resulted in a greater number of responses received and offer greater validity to this study. Social implications: While key success factors are clearly identified, fragmentation is seen as a barrier to the wholesale collection of such data. The responsibility, obligation to collect data for the benefit of future projects is not a priority for SMEs with little or no incentive to consider the progression of the sector. Albeit, there is evidence of one particular successful constructor/SPV, which is consolidating their business and are experiencing greater and sustained success. Originality/value: This paper identifies previously unknown key influencing factors of success for educational PFI projects in relation to LCM.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | education; influencing factors; lifecycle costing; lifecycle costs; lifecycle management; pf2; PFI |
| Index terms: | interview, influencing factor, prison, fragmentation, literature review, big data, success factor, maximization, validity, profit, life cycle management, private finance initiative, methodology, influential factor, lifecycle, evidence, questionnaire, investigation, purposive sampling, costing, value-for-money |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements, data analysis and analytics, project delivery, health monitoring assessment and metrics, economic analysis, value management, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, risk assessment, business, administrative law, information systems, evaluation, research methods, algorithms, accounting and finance |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Digital Applications, Value Management, Organizational Design, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Project Management, Research Practice, Risk Management, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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