Eaton, D; Akbiyikli, R and Dickinson, M (2006) An evaluation of the stimulants and impediments to innovation within PFI/PPP projects. Construction Innovation, 6(2), pp. 63-67. ISSN 1471-4175
Abstract
This paper identifies the theoretical stimulants and impediments associated with the implementation of PFI/PPP (Private Finance Initiative/Public Private Partnership)projects. A current defect of this procurement approach is the unintentional constraint upon the innovations incorporated into the development of PFI projects. A critical evaluation of the published literature has been utilized to synthesize a theoretical model. The paper proposes a theoretical model for the identification of potential innovation stimulants and impediments within this type of procurement. This theoretical model is then utilised to evaluate four previously completed PFI projects. These project casestudies have been examined in detail. The evaluation demonstrates how ineffective current procedures are. The application of this model before project letting could eliminate unintentional constraints and stimulate improved innovation within the process.The implementation of the model could improve the successful delivery of innovation within the entire PFI/PPP procurement process.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | innovation impediments; innovation stimulants; PFI; PPP |
| Index terms: | implementation, public private partnership, procurement process, private finance initiative |
| Subjects: | contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Procurement |
| 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