Leiringer, R (2006) Technological innovation in PPPs: Incentives, opportunities and actions. Construction Management and Economics, 24(3), pp. 301-308. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
From a construction perspective, Public-Private Partnership projects (PPPs) are often credited as providing real incentives for the actors involved as well as a business environment that is conducive to innovation and improved practices. The validity of four common rhetorical arguments used to promote the PPP procurement route is explored: collaborative working, design freedom, long-term commitment and risk transfer. Particular interest is given to the extent to which espoused intentions correlate with experienced realities in allowing actors involved in the design and construction phases to be presented with, and able to exploit, opportunities for technological innovation. It is argued that there is reason to be cautious in fully accepting the purported benefits of the PPP framework and that the arguments often presented need to be revised. Alternative interpretations are provided.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaborative working; design freedom; long term commitment; public-private partnership; risk transfer; technological innovation |
| Index terms: | design and construction, technological innovation, partnership, validity, commitment |
| Subjects: | partnership management, psychology, innovation and technology management, contractual arrangements, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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