Abstracts – Browse Results
Click on the titles below to expand the information about each abstract.
Viewing 8 results ...
Asao, K, Miyamoto, T, Kato, H and Diaz, C E D (2013) Comparison of revenue guarantee programs in build-operation-transfer projects. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 3(02), 214-27.
Leviäkangas, P, Wigan, M and Haapasalo, H (2013) Financial anatomy of E4 Helsinki-Lahti shadow toll PPP-project. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 3(02), 165-80.
Liu, T and Wilkinson, S (2013) Can the pilot public-private partnerships project be applied in future urban rail development?: A case study of Beijing Metro Line 4 project. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 3(02), 250-63.
Mladenovic, G, Vajdic, N, Wündsch, B and Temeljotov-Salaj, A (2013) Use of key performance indicators for PPP transport projects to meet stakeholders’ performance objectives. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 3(02), 228-49.
- Type: Journal Article
- Keywords: Concession; Critical success factors; Infrastructure management; Key indicators; Performance indicators; Performance management; Transport
- ISBN/ISSN: 2044-124X
- URL: https://doi.org/10.1108/BEPAM-05-2012-0026
- Abstract:
Purpose – The need for more efficient and effective public-private partnership (PPP) projects makes performance management of increasing importance, especially with respect to stakeholder expectations. This paper seeks to examine the use of key performances indicators (KPI) based on the analysis of critical success factors (CSF) for monitoring of PPP transport projects from the perspective of different stakeholders. Design/methodology/approach – The list of stakeholders’ performance objectives including CSF was defined using the brainstorming technique applied to group of experts in PPP transport sectors and refined through literature review. Input of the expert group was validated against a feedback from a respective survey. Three main groups of stakeholders were identified: public sector, private sector, and users. Finally, the review and comparative analysis of existing KPIs in PPP transport projects was performed based on stakeholders’ objectives and project attributes using the “frequency of mention” approach. Findings – The paper introduced a two layers approach for the assessment of PPP projects. The first stage was based on evaluation of project ultimate objectives from the standpoint of each stakeholder, i.e. profitability for private sector, effectiveness and value for money for public sector, and level of service for users. An adjusted and weighted combination of fulfillment of the specific stakeholder objectives leads to an overall approach (second layer) of describing a PPPs success or failure. Originality/value – The paper presents the comprehensive review of literature on transport PPP projects and evaluation of available CSFs and KPIs.
Nikolaidis, N and Roumboutsos, A (2013) A PPP renegotiation framework: a road concession in Greece. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 3(02), 264-78.
Pellegrino, R, Vajdic, N and Carbonara, N (2013) Real option theory for risk mitigation in transport PPPs. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 3(02), 199-213.
Roumboutsos, A and Macário, R M R (2013) Public private partnerships in transport: theory and practice. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 3(02), 160-4.
Sfakianakis, E and Laar, M v d (2013) Fiscal effects and public risk in public-private partnerships. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 3(02), 181-98.