Zhang, J; Chen, F and Yuan, X X (2020) Comparison of cost and schedule performance of large public projects under P3 and traditional delivery models: A Canadian study. Construction Management and Economics, 38(8), pp. 739-755. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Cost overrun and schedule delay are pervasive in large public infrastructure projects in Canada and there is an ongoing debate over the root causes of these delivery risks and how best to mitigate them. Since public-private partnerships (P3s) have been long touted as an effective mitigating measure, this study aimed to provide comparative empirical evidence to explore this claim. By collecting cost and schedule data at three key milestones (decision to build, contract awarding and substantial completion) from 39 traditional projects and 27 P3 projects across Canada between 2004 and 2016, the study develops an innovative longitudinal profiling approach to inform the debate about the causes of cost overruns in large public projects. Statistical analyses of the collected data unambiguously demonstrate that P3s outperform non-P3 traditional delivery models during the construction stage in both cost overrun and schedule delay. However, substantial budget underestimation is found in the strategic decision-making process of both models of project delivery. Results from the study also provide solid objective grounds for the development of advanced value-for-money assessment methodology.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | large project; optimism bias; project performance; public-private partnership |
| Index terms: | schedule delay, public infrastructure, cost overrun, partnership, decision-making process, Canada, statistical analysis, mitigating measure, project performance, optimism bias, project delivery, schedule performance, public project, methodology, evidence, value-for-money |
| Subjects: | project controls, partnership management, decision analysis, cognitive psychology, infrastructure and transport systems, research methods, Geography, project management theory and practice, financial risk, infrastructure engineering, evaluation, data science, financial and cost management, project delivery, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Value Management, Time Control, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Cost Management, Procurement, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
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