Performance indicators for lifecycle process of public private partnership (PPP) projects in Malaysia

Abstract

PurposeThis paper has two objectives. The first objective is to examine the important performance indicators of the lifecycle process of public private partnership (PPP) projects. The second objective is to investigate the difference in the perception of the importance of the performance indicators between the public and private sectors.Design/methodology/approachTo achieve the research objectives, the study used a questionnaire survey. The questionnaire was distributed via postal mail to officers of government departments and private sector companies who may have been involved in PPP projects. A total of 237 completed questionnaires were received, representing a 51.52% response rate. To examine the importance of performance indicators, the descriptive statistical tests of mean, standard deviation and mean score ranking were used. Independent t-tests were conducted to investigate the differences in the perceptions of the importance of performance indicators between the two respondent groups.FindingsThe findings show that all the 16 performance indicators are perceived as important and very important. The top five important performance indicators for a PPP project lifecycle process are “Time management”, “Contractual management”, “Cost management”, “Safety management” and “Effective risk management system”, while “stress or conflicts management” is the least important. In terms of the differences in the perception of the public and private sector groups, the results indicate that four indicators (“environment protection”, “cost management”, “effective risk management system” and “good work environment”), show a significant statistical difference between the perception of the public and the private sector respondents.Originality/valueThis study offers empirical evidence on key performance indicators for a PPP project that are crucial throughout its lifecycle as perceived by two key parties in a PPP contract, i.e. the public and the private sectors.

Reviewing the Role of Key Performance Indicators in Architectural and Urban Design Practices

“…Simulations Field measurement [61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] Literature review [69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82] Other methodologies [83][84][85][86][87][88] survey [89] coding [90][91][92] analysis [93] comparison…”

Evaluating and optimizing performance of public–private partnership projects using copula Bayesian network

“…Although these studies are valuable, they concentrated on single aspects of PPPs and neglected the key performance indicators. KPIs are crucial to enhancing PPPs performance and are needed to develop comprehensive performance management frameworks (Hashim et al, 2017;Ismail et al, 2021;Medimagh and Triki, 2019;Mladenovic et al, 2013;Yuan et al, 2008;Yuan et al, 2020).…”

“…KPIs are crucial to enhancing PPPs performance and are needed to develop comprehensive performance management frameworks (Hashim et al. , 2017; Ismail et al. , 2021; Medimagh and Triki, 2019; Mladenovic et al.…”

Transforming Facility Engineering Practices in Nigeria: Insights from Abuja Metropolis

“…Facility management encompasses the integrated approach to operating, maintaining, improving, and adapting an organisation's buildings and infrastructure to align with its primary objectives (Matarneh et al, 2019;Pärn et al, 2017). This discipline, also known as the structuring of building plants and contents to enhance the creation of end products and as the planning design, procurement, and maintenance of all property assets to achieve optimal environmental quality and efficiency (Ismail et al, 2022;Lok et al, 2018;Okoye & Adelakun, 2019), operates at three main levels: strategic, tactical, and operational. The significance of facility management has grown exponentially in recent years as organisations recognise its pivotal role in space management and resource conservation (Adelakun, 2024;Olanipekun et al, 2020).…”