How do adoption choices influence public private partnership outcomes? Lessons from Spain and Portugal transport infrastructure

Abstract

Purpose Maximising real efficiency benefit (REB) is currently being replaced with access to private finance as core public–private partnership (PPP) adoption motive. This later choice focusses on short-term performance, compromising REB and the procurement of infrastructure that meets the need of the present and future generations, which the former accomplishes. The paper aims to review these observed changes to understand the rationales and significance behind such switch.Design/methodology/approach Secondary data powered exploratory study. Deployed X-inefficiency theory to triangulate and reduce bias and select country cases to provide the proper foundation for the descriptive “what happened?” question, such as “what was the failure concerns with a particular adoption choice?”Findings The shift to accessing private finance adoption motive against REB failed to improve PPP project performance or meet efficiency and sustainability. Instead, it allows the private sector to assume financial risk without synergistic monitoring from the government to determine their contractual and commitment trust level, which would help achieve the five-dimensional sustainable performance measurement system for PPP. This led to the struggles of PPP projects in Portugal and Spain, where cost overruns and high demand forecast led to project failures. A recommendation, blended finance with its technical assistance additionality, is considered pivotal to addressing access to private finance motive shortcomings.Originality/value This study improves best practices for new and existing adopters by systematically establishing that adoption ideology is a cardinal variable that influences PPP project success. When not correctly adopted, it can make the most successful structured projects face complexities and uncertainty.

Developing a Reference Framework for Claim Management Office: A Multi-Method Approach of an International Construction Firm

“…More importantly, the reference framework (refer to Figure 5) provides three main functions, along with 20 subfunctions, which can be used systematically by firms considering the multiple-level groups. Moreover, if the results are compared with other studies and the difference is described, some of the parts in Figure 5 remain true to previous studies concluded: (1) closeout claims [26]; (2) improvement of organisational ambidexterity [31][32][33]72,73]; (3) dispute settlement [23,77,79,81]; (4) claim phases and timeline [9,61,62]; (5) CMO maturity level [21]; (6) claim performance indicators [22,58]. However, as previous scholars have reported on OPM-related decisions [17,19,20], past research has not figured out how all of these behavioural-based concepts can be integrated into the design structure of CMO in firms' organisations.…”

“…This study's principal contribution is that integrated X-inefficiency and ambidexterity theories [32,[63][64][65] (which capture the intra-firm irrational managerial decisions, particularly in international firms) can improve claim performance [22]. Specifically, this research contributes to current CMO literature by developing the reference framework on how different influences among the reference framework's elements lead to better organisational claim performance.…”

“…Recently, organisational ambidexterity and X-inefficiency theories have gained some traction as a theoretical foundation to explain intra-firm related phenomena [32,[62][63][64][65]. This present study attempts to integrate the X-inefficiency theory with organisational ambidexterity theory as a plausible choice to improve organisational claim performance.…”

“…However, the performance dimensions and indicators with CMO-related levels and its intra-firm structure are yet to be fully understood. Some researchers [32,33] proffer that integrating organisational ambidexterity theory with X-inefficiency theory is relevant, resulting in more qualitative insights into intra-firms' behavioural dynamics. An unanswered question, however, is: how do PBOs design an OPM-based CMO approach for improving industry-related claim performance?…”

Impact of project governance on project success, with mediating role of organizational support and project team cohesion

“…Furthermore, the scholars Khan et al (2021) found that excellent PG boosts project performance, allowing for prompt and efficient risk management and control. In addition, Anago (2022) discovered that well-articulated and receptive governance configurations are significant PS elements for “public-private partnership” (PPP) initiatives. Although empirical research on the association between PS and PG is limited (Biesenthal and Wilden, 2014; PMI, 2016), it depicts a favorable trend.…”