Search results

The objectives of this present study are twofold. First, it aims to investigate the performance objectives of PPP implementation in Malaysia. Second, it aims to examine the differences in the perceptions of two PPP key players – the public and private sectors – pertaining to the performance objectives.

A questionnaire survey was used to elicit the perceptions of the public and private sectors concerning the performance objectives of PPP projects in Malaysia; 237 usable responses were obtained and analysed using SPSS to rank the importance of the performance objectives and to examine the differences in the perceptions between the government and private sectors.

The results reveal that the five most important performance objectives for PPP implementation in Malaysia based on overall respondents’ perceptions are “High-quality public service”, “Provide convenient service for society”, “Within or under budget”, “On-time or earlier” and “Satisfy the need for more public facilities”. As for differences in the perceptions of the two key players, only one objective was perceived as statistically more important by the public sector respondents than by their private sector counterparts.

The contribution of this paper is that it not only provides empirical evidence for the performance objectives for PPP implementation in Malaysia, but also offers evidence concerning the differences in the perceptions of the public and private sectors pertaining to the performance objectives.

This 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.

To 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.

The 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.

This 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.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to identify the important performance indicators used in assessing public private partnership (PPP) performance in terms of the two aspects of PPP which are “financing and markets” and “innovation and learnings”; and second, to investigate the differences in the perception between public and private sectors on the importance of performance indicators in terms of the two aspects of PPP.

Using a questionnaire survey, 237 completed questionnaires were received representing 51.52 per cent response rate. In examining the importance of performance indicators, the descriptive statistical tests of mean, standard deviation and mean score ranking were used. The independent t-tests were conducted to investigate the differences in the perceptions between the two respondents’ groups on the importance of performance indicators.

In relation to the two areas of indicators used in assessing PPP performance, the findings show that the top three important performance indicators for financing and markets are: “Operational cost”, “Construction cost” and “Construction period”. While the top three important performance indicators for innovation and learning are: “Technology innovation”, “Employee training” and “Financial innovation”. In terms of the differences in the perceptions between the public and private sector groups, the test results indicate that there is only one significant statistical difference for each aspect of performance indicators.

This study offers empirical evidence on key financial performance indicators for PPP projects as perceived by two key parties in a PPP contract that are public and private sectors.