Dharmapuri Tirumala, R; Dangol, N; Tiwari, P and Vaz-Serra, P (2021) Comparative analysis of outcomes under PPP and traditional modes of delivery: A study of schools in Melbourne. Construction Management and Economics, 39(11), pp. 894-911. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Public Private Partnership (PPP) arrangements are perceived as compelling alternatives to traditional infrastructure development to raise finances and improve efficiency. However, with the substantial improvement in the provision of services through traditionally developed infrastructure, the benefits of PPP implementation need to be continually evaluated. This research investigates three categories of outcomes (educational, stakeholder satisfaction, and general outcomes) for schools in Melbourne implemented under PPP arrangement to those implemented under a traditional procurement method. Data Envelopment Analysis is used to assess the efficiency of these outcomes, based on the consumption of teaching, financial and physical resources. The results indicate that there is no substantial difference between the performance of both arrangements. While the schools implemented under the PPP arrangement have provided better education outcomes, the traditional schools perform better in stakeholder satisfaction and general outcomes. The results indicate that the policymakers need to evaluate infrastructure based PPP arrangements more closely and align with the desired outcomes.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | data envelopment analysis; dmu; education; public private partnership; schools |
| Index terms: | consumption, infrastructure development, comparative analysis, stakeholder satisfaction, implementation, data envelopment analysis, public private partnership, efficiency, traditional procurement |
| Subjects: | consumer economics, participation process, data analysis and analytics, contractual arrangements, infrastructure engineering, performance management |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Quality Management |
| 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