Yuan, J; Zeng, A Y; Skibniewski, M J and Li, Q (2009) Selection of performance objectives and key performance indicators in public-private partnership projects to achieve value for money. Construction Management and Economics, 27(3), pp. 253-270. ISSN 1466433X
Abstract
Public-private partnerships (PPPs) have been applied widely in the global construction market. During the life cycle of PPP projects, their performance could be affected by a number of factors and their interactions, which might cause the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the projects. Previous researches on PPPs mainly concentrated on the procurement, success measurement and risk management of PPPs, but paid little attention to the process factors that can strongly influence the performance of PPPs. In order to improve process and performance management in PPPs, the performance objectives and key performance indicators (KPIs) are identified to improve the partnership outcomes. Based on the goal-setting theory, 15 performance objectives are selected. The relative significance and difference of performance objectives for different stakeholders are presented based on a structured questionnaire survey. The survey results show that all identified objectives are important. In spite of stakeholders' common opinions on the objectives of quality, costs, time and the services provided by PPPs, there are evident differences in the objectives of budget constraints of the public sector, risks, revenue and guarantees. According to the survey results, a conceptual KPIs framework is established. Furthermore, the KPIs are identified to assess PPP projects' performance. The performance objectives and the KPIs, which can be used to identify the strengths and weaknesses of PPP projects, are useful tools for effective project performance management in PPPs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | key performance indicators; performance management; public-private partnership; value for money |
| Index terms: | survey, revenue, guarantee, value-for-money, questionnaire, partnership, life cycle, public sector, budget constraint, performance management, key performance indicator, interaction, global construction, risk management, project performance |
| Subjects: | evaluation, project management theory and practice, performance measurement, contract structure, behavioral psychology, administrative law, partnership management, value management, strategic management, risk assessment, data collection methods, economic analysis, financial and cost management, project delivery |
| Topics: | Value Management, International Construction, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Procurement, Stakeholder Management, Risk Management, Project Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Cost Management |
| 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