fe * ong (PP s of cho ctor for licepr Despite being extensively applied in both developed and developing countries since 1970s, PPP is not a panacea as the interests of the government, investor and society may vary signif- icantly (HM Treasury, 2000). Identifying and balancing the interests of all stakeholders in an open and equitable manner thus becomes as the reasons for PPP projects failure (e.g. Jefferies, Gameson, & Rowlinson, 2002; Zhang, 2005). Most of the critical success factors (CSFs) identified in the literature, however, are related to the operation and implementation stage. Little study has been focus- sing on the factors pertinent to the feasibility stage that are critical to project success from both public and private perspectives (Hardcastle, Edwards, Akintoye, & Li, 2005; Keong, Tiong, & Alum, 1997). In addition, previous studies merely focused on the acqui- sition of the views from industry practitioners in the public and * Corresponding author. Tel.: þ852 9075 7072; fax: þ852 2559 5337. E-mail addresses:
[email protected] (S.T. Ng),
[email protected] Contents lists available at Habitat Inte lse Habitat International 36 (2012) 423e432 (Y.M.W. Wong),
[email protected] (J.M.W. Wong). is becoming increasingly popular in both developing and developed countries (McQuaid, 2000; Takim, Abdul-Rahman, Ismail, & Egbu, 2009). Many practitioners and researchers believe that PPP can release governments’ tight budgetary pressure by injecting private sector’s resources, encouraging innovation, enhancing productivity, allowing better risk allocation, increasing value-for-money, improving cost effectiveness, and so on (Cheung, Chan, & Kajewski, 2009; Kernaghan, 1993; Kouwenhoven, 1993; Medda, 2006). PPP shall, therefore, create a “triple win” scenario among the public sector, private consortium and general community. organisational change and social behaviour. When a PPP scheme fails to meet the conflicting expectations of any parties, the government might have to consider buying out the facility for re- tendering or own operation, and the results could be protracted negotiation and compensation (Dailarni & Klein, 1997). Therefore, it is imperative to examine what contributes to the success of a PPP scheme from the corresponding views of the government, investor and society. Research and case studies were carried out to investigate the drivers or factors contributing to the success of PPP projects as well facilities and services bymeansof pub Introduction The notion of involving private se 0197-3975/$ e see front matter � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2012.02.002 community so as to attain a “triple win” scenario, via a questionnaire survey and a series of expert interviews conducted in Hong Kong. Survey results indicate that the most critical factor for evaluating the feasibility of PPP projects, especially to the general community, is an acceptable level of tariff. Cost effectiveness and financial attractiveness are the most important evaluation factors as ranked by the public sector and private consortium respectively. In addition, the existence of a long-term demand for the proposed services, availability of strong private consortium, alignment with government’s strategic objectives, as well as reliable service delivery are also rated as highly important to the success of PPP schemes. Addressing the tripartite expectations is indispensable to ensure the feasibility and successful delivery of public services and infrastructure projects via PPP schemes. � 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. the provision of public ivatepartnerships (PPP) a major challenge when determining whether PPP is a feasible and the most value-for-money approach for delivering public facilities and services. The problem is aggravated as stakeholders’ interests may change over time due to such forces as political pressure, evaluation of adopting the PPP at the outset. This study aims to explore the key successful ingredients to be assessed at the initial stage of PPP projects as perceived public sector, private consortium and general Project feasibility were identified. It is however more important for decision-makers to identify the factors for feasibility Factors influencing the success of PPP at study in Hong Kong S. Thomas Ng, Yoki M.W. Wong, James M.W. Wong Department of Civil Engineering, The University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam Road, Hong K Keywords: Critical success factors PPP Procurement strategies a b s t r a c t Public Private Partnerships in delivering various type health care facilities and s journal homepage: www.e All rights reserved. asibility stage e A tripartite comparison P) have been used extensively in both developing and developed countries projects, ranging from road construction, railway transport systems to ols. Critical success factors of PPP schemes at the implementation stage SciVerse ScienceDirect rnational vier .com/locate/habitat int rnat private sectors. The perspectives and expectations of the commu- nity have not been carefully explored and compared (Goven & Langer, 2009; Treatmann, 2007). Identifying the success factors as perceived by these three parties for evaluating the feasibility of PPP is considered essential and valuable. In view of that, this study applies an industry-wide survey in Hong Kong to explore the key successful ingredients for feasibility evaluation of PPP projects and to examine the perceptions of the public sector, private sector and general community on those success-related factors so as to arrive at the ultimate “triple win” outcome. Given the Hong Kong’s experience in PPP since the 1970s (Cheung et al., 2009), the findings of this study are valuable for successful PPP applications. This paper is organised as five sections. Following this introduction, the next section reviews the success factors for PPP projects reported from the literature. Details of the research methodology including the survey methodology and data analysis technique adopted are elaborated. This is followed by the empirical results and the implications of the findings. Concluding remarks are drawn in the last section. Literature review: critical success factors for PPP projects Success has always been the ultimate goal of every activity, and this is no exception for a construction project which is typified by completing within the budget, schedule and quality standard (Atkinson, 1999; Mahalingam, 2010; Walker, 1995). A number of CSFs or drivers to the success of PPP projects were explored by various researchers. In particular, Hardcastle et al. (2005) had conducted an extensive review into the success factors and sum- marised them into eighteen CSFs. Factor analysis was subsequently carried out to classify these factors into five main groups namely (i) effective procurement; (ii) project implementability; (iii) govern- ment guarantee; (iv) favourable economic conditions; and (v) available financial market. Zhang (2005) had also developed a CSF package for improving PPP procurement protocol. The package contains five main CSFs namely: (i) favourable investment environment; (ii) economic viability; (iii) reliable concessionaire consortium with strong tech- nical strength; (iv) sound financial package; and (v) appropriate risk allocation via reliable contractual arrangements. Ozdoganm and Birgonul (2000), on the other hand, developed a decision support framework and formulated a checklist of CSFs that can be used for testing the viability of a PPP project. The CSFs being divided into four main groups include: (i) Financial and commercial factors: existence of service need, government guarantee, existence of a strong team of consor- tium members, profitability of project, stability of economic environment in the country, and ability of project to attract foreign capital; (ii) Political and legal factors: stability of political environment in the country, experience of government in PPP schemes; transparency of procurement system, and existence of a mature legal framework and adequate regulatory framework (Cheung, Chan, & Kajewski, 2010); (iii) Technical factors: technical manageability of project size, reli- ability and experience of private consortium, and possible innovative solutions; as well as (iv) Social factors: public acceptance of the project, consistency of project with environmental issue, and price of service. Among various methods of CSFs classification, the grouping method suggested by Ozdoganm and Birgonul (2000) is adopted for this study since it categorises the factors systemically according S.T. Ng et al. / Habitat Inte424 to the characteristics of different aspects of risk involved in a PPP project. Risks in different aspects including technical, financial and economic, social, environmental, as well as political and legal are important factors to be considered by decision-makers (Han & Diekmann, 2001; Ke, Wang, Chan, & Lam, 2010). A comprehensive feasible study of a PPP project should address the factors related to all these dimensions and the project is only sustainable when it is economically viable, as well as socially and environmentally acceptable (Heinke & Wei, 2000; Zhang, 2004). A total of 36 reported CSFs from the literature that are considered relevant to the early stage feasibility evaluation of a PPP project are consolidated and categorised under the five main groups of factors as shown in Table 1. They include: (i) technical factors; (ii) financial and economic factors; (iii) social factors; (iv) political and legal; and (v) others (staff issue and possible management actions). Research methodology Fig. 1 summarises the research procedures and methods to achieve the stipulated research aim. Research methodology adop- ted in this study includes literature review, statistical analysis based on a questionnaire survey as well as semi-structured interviews to collect different types of data. A comprehensive literature review was conducted initially to identify the definitions, characteristics, benefits and risks of PPP. Various success factors proposed by researchers and those reported by practitioners for project feasibility evaluation were also identi- fied as presented in the previous section. Pilot interviewswere then conducted with four PPP experts and decision-makers in both public and private sectors to examine the local practice on assessing the feasibility of PPP projects and to seek their experts’ opinions in validating the compiled list of CSFs. The profiles of the inter- viewees are shown in Table 2. The interviewees unanimously consented to the identified CSFs of PPP projects. Their opinions and the results obtained from the pilot study added significant value to the research and are useful in facilitating the study to move forward. Subsequently, a structured questionnaire protocol was designed based on the identified CSFs. Respondents were asked to rate the degree of importance of the identified success factors in evaluating the feasibility of PPP from their own perspective using a 7-point Likert scale as suggested by Powell (1991) and Oppenheim (1992). Six experts who had at least 5-years experience in carrying out PPP projects representing public agencies, private investors together with 4r citizens randomly selected from the general public were invited to pilot the questionnaire. Using a stratified sampling approach, respondents were classi- fied into three groups: i) the government; ii) private sector; iii) and community groups. The questionnaires were directly distributed to the selected individuals via postal mail or email. The private sector group covers industry practitioners including developers, consul- tants, contractors and investment bankers who are experienced in PPP schemes, while officers with practical experience of PPP in relevant government departments were targeted. To ensure that respondents from the community appreciate the purpose of this study, a brief introduction about the concept of PPP and the research objectives were incorporated in the survey package. A total of 181 questionnaires were received out of the 800 questionnaires administered, representing a response rate of 23%. Table 3 shows the breakdown of the survey sample. About 45% of the respondents were from the private sector, while 27% and 29%t of respondents came from the public sector and the general public respectively. Over 83% of the respondents from the public sector and private groups had over 5 years of relevant practical experi- ence, and 36% of them had worked in the industry for more than 15 ional 36 (2012) 423e432 years. Table 1 Evaluation factors for feasibility study of PPP projects. (continued on next page) S.T.N g et al./ H abitat International 36 (2012) 423 e 432 425 Ta b le 1 (c on ti nu ed ) S.T. Ng et al. / Habitat International 36 (2012) 423e432426 rch S.T. Ng et al. / Habitat International 36 (2012) 423e432 427 Non-parametric statistical techniques were adopted to analyse the quantitative data acquired from the questionnaire survey. Descriptive analysis was first conducted to establish the relative significance of the factors for evaluating the feasibility of PPP projects. The 7-point Likert scale described previously was used to calculate the mean score for each factor, which was then used to determine their relative rankings in descending order of impor- tance. These rankingsmade it possible to cross-compare the relative significance of the factors across different groups of respondents. Fig. 1. Resea The level of agreement as perceived between any two surveyed groups on their rankings of the CSFs was measured by the Spear- man’s rank correlation coefficient (rs) as shown in Equation (1). The coefficient, rs, ranges between �1 and þ1. A value of þ1 denotes a perfect positive linear correlation whereas negative values indi- cate negative linear correlation meaning that low ranking on one is associated with high ranking on the other. If the correlation is close to 0, then it implies that no linear relationship exists between the two groups on the variable (Albright, Winston, & Zappe, 2006). If rs was significant under the correlation test, the null hypothesis that no significant correlation between the two groups on the rankings can be rejected. The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients were calculated by the following equation (Norusis, 2002): rs ¼ 1� 6 P d2 N � N2 � 1� (1) where d represents the difference in rank of the two groups for the same CSF and N denotes the number of pairs of the CSFs being ranked. Table 2 Profiles of interviewees for pilot study. Interviewee Designation Organisation Sector 1 Assistant director Policy bureau, HKSAR Public 2 Senior engineer Works department, HKSAR Public 3 Chief architect Works department, HKSAR Public 4 Head of development Main contractor Private In addition, independent sample t-tests were performed using SPSS to compare the specific CSFs as evaluated among the public sector, private sector and the general community. The t-tests were applied for comparing the means between two sample groups in order to determine the factors that are rated with significant difference in importance between the three parties of stakeholders on a two-by-two basis. If the test result was significant, then the null hypothesis that no significant differences in the mean values between the respondent groups can be rejected (Norusis, 2002). framework. Results derived from the analysis of empirical questionnaire survey were cross-referenced to the published literature and to complement each other for validation. Prior to drawing conclusions from the survey findings, eight experts in PPP representing the three parties of stakeholders were invited to participate in the validation interviews in order to justify the result obtained. The profiles of the interviewee are highlighted in Table 4. Critical success factors The relative importance of the CSFs for feasibility evaluation of PPP as perceived by all the survey respondents using mean analysis is shown in Table 5. In general, results show that all factors have a mean rating higher than midpoint 4 of the 7-point Likert scale, indicating the importance of the identified factors to ensure the feasibility of PPP. Particularly, “acceptable level of toll/tariff” (Factor S4) is rated as the most important factor (mean ¼ 5.78; s.d. ¼ 1.11). This concurs with HM Treasury (2004) that reasonable toll is Table 3 Response rate of questionnaire survey. Public sector Private sector General public Total Number of questionnaires sent out 200 200 400 800 Number of completed questionnaires received 48 80 53 181 Response rate 24% 40% 13% 23% Percentage in the sample 27% 44% 29% 100% Table 5 Critical success factors for PPP projects by all respondents. Success factors Mean s.d. Technical T1 e Project size is technically manageable by a single consortium 5.00 1.39 T2 e Possibility of innovative solutions (e.g. leading to time/cost savings) 5.30 1.12 T3 e Availability of Government experience in packaging similar PPP projects 5.13 1.20 T4 e Availability of experienced, strong and reliable private consortium 5.72* .90 T5 e Service quality can be easily defined and objectively measured 5.27 1.09 T6 e Contract is flexible enough for frequent change in output specification 5.06 1.38 T7 e Project is not susceptible to fast-paced change (e.g. technological change) 4.52 1.18 Financial and economic F1 e Project is more cost effective than traditional forms of project delivery 5.66* 1.19 F2 e Project can be substantially self-funded or on a non-recourse basis 5.35 1.24 F3 e Project value is sufficiently large to avoid procurement disproportionate procurement costs 5.09 1.10 F4 e Project is of financial interest to private sector 5.67* 1.26 F5 e Project can attract foreign capital 4.65 1.34 F6 e Project is bankable and profitability of the project is sufficient to attract investors and lenders 5.47 1.14 F7 e Economic environment is stable and favourable 5.14 1.24 F8 e Existence of a sound governmental economic policy 5.30 1.15 F9 e Competition from other projects is limited 4.31 1.32 Social S1 e There is a long-term demand of the products/service in the community 5.72* 1.23 S2 e The community is understanding and supportive 5.62 1.17 S3 e Delivery of services is stable and reliable 5.71* 1.04 S4 e Level of toll/tariff is acceptable 5.78* 1.11 S5 e Project can create more job opportunities 4.95 1.35 S6 e Project is environmentally sustainable 5.13 1.12 Political and legal P1 e Project is not politically sensitive 4.93 1.27 P2 e Political environment is stable 5.10 1.08 P3 e There is political support for the project 5.18 1.19 P4 e The project is compatible with current statutory and institutional arrangements 5.20 1.09 P5 e There is a favourable legal framework 5.34 1.00 rnational 36 (2012) 423e432 imperativewhen considering the PPP delivery approach. “Existence of a long-term demand of the services in the community” (Factor S1) (mean ¼ 5.72; s.d. ¼ 1.23) and “stable and reliable delivery of services” (Factor S3) (mean ¼ 5.71; s.d. ¼ 1.04) are also highly rated by the respondents as important social factors. Most PPP projects involve the transfer of assets from the public sector to the private consortium and the private sector is respon- sible for delivering the public services. People in the society may not support this new idea of procurement as they worry about the decline in service quality or increase in price of service (MOMA, 1999). Therefore, ensuring a reliable service delivery and reason- able service charge are imperative when considering the adoption of PPP approach. “Availability of experienced, strong and reliable private consor- tium” (Factor T4) (mean ¼ 5.72; s.d. ¼ .90) is rated as the most important technical factor contributing to success for PPP projects. Tam (1999) and Hardcastle et al. (2005) also advocated that the existence of a large and reliable consortium with experienced construction organisation should be critically examined in order to achieve a successful PPP. In addition, “profitability of a PPP project” (Factor F4) (mean¼5.67; s.d.¼1.26) and “project ismore costeffective than traditional forms of project delivery” (Factor F1), as expected are highly rated as a critical factor for project feasibility evaluation in the initial stage of PPP projects. In order to attract private sector’s participation and initial investment, the project should be bankable and profitable to investors (Ashley, Bauman, Carroll, Diekmann, & Finlayson, 1998; Zhang, 2005). “Matching government’s strategic and long-termobjectives” (FactorO9) (mean¼5.71; s.d.¼1.10), on the other hand, is also an imperative factor for feasibility evaluation of PPP as addressed by Efficiency Unit (2003). Table 4 Profiles of interviewees involved in the validation. Interviewee Designation Organization Sector A Senior engineer Works department, HKSAR government Public B Project engineer Works department HKSAR government Public C Head of department Main contractor Private D Project engineer Private developer Private E Managing director Quantity surveying firm Private F Professor Local university General community G Associate professor Local university General community H Professor Local university General community S.T. Ng et al. / Habitat Inte428 The interviewees agreedon theorderof importance as revealed in the survey findings. A number of interviewees (5 out of 8), however, argued that political support which is related to the support of the community should be considered as an important success factor for PPP projects. They believed that it is difficult for the government to start a project without political and community support and the private sector would be concerned about the risk of project being overturned. A comprehensive stakeholder engagement process is therefore inevitable when implementing PPP projects. Group comparisons Overall observations The possibility of diverse opinions on the rankings of CSFs for evaluating the feasibility of PPP as perceived by the public sector, private sector and general community were investigated. The rankings by each respondent group were transformed into a matrix (mature, reasonable and predictable) Other O1 e Fairness of new conditions to employees 4.98 1.12 O2 e Possibility of significant redundancy 4.76 1.05 O3 e Existence of a resolution for any civil service staff redundancy 4.81 1.23 O4 e Supportiveness and commitment of staff to the project 5.10 1.18 O5 e Flexibility to decide appropriate risk allocation 5.31 1.11 O6 e Support from the government (e.g. guarantee or loans) is available 5.06 1.25 O7 e Authority can be shared between the public and private sectors 5.10 1.19 O8 e Possibility of an effective control mechanism over the private consortium 5.56 1.18 O9 e Matching government’s strategic and long-term objectives 5.71* 1.10 Note: Items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 7 ¼ strongly agree. * ¼ Critical success factors. of imported data for compiling the rankings as shown in Table 6. It should be stressed that the ranking exercise is based on the analysis of the perceived relative importance of factors, rather than an objective assessment to provide absolute value on the ranking position. Emphasis is therefore given only to factors that are placed as the most important and the least important in the ranking list (Chan & Yeong, 1995). Empirical analysis was then conducted to test the consensus amongst the groups of respondents on the ranking exercise using the Spearman’s rank correlation test. Table 7 summarises the Spearman’s rank correlation coefficients and the corresponding significance levels. It suggests that all the null hypotheses that no significant correlation between private consortium and public sector; public sector and general community; and private consor- tium and general community on the ranking of CSFs for PPP projects can be rejected. It is worth noting that the correlation between the private sector and public is relatively weak with rs ¼ .38, indicating that the agreement on the ranking is not considerable. Although results of the correlation test reveal that the three groups of respondents shared a fairly consistent view on the ranking of the CSFs, the analysis of the ranking exercise indicates some interesting results. Private sector investors are apparently concerned heavily with the financial aspect in evaluating the feasibility of the PPP approach. The private sector ranked “project is of financial interest to private sector” (Factor F4) and “bankable/ profitable” (Factor F6) as the first and third CSF, but the public bound to deliver “mutually agreed objectives” (Roumboutsos & Chiara, 2009). The survey findings reveal that one-third of the rated CSFs (12 out of 36) show a significant difference in mean ratings as perceived by the respondents from the public sector and private consortium. Among these factors, respondents from the public sector generally gave higher ratings on most of the factors than the private sector. Factors with greatest difference between the public and private sectors are “project is more cost effective than traditional forms of project delivery” (Factor F1) (mean difference ¼ .95) and “possibility of significant staff redundancy” (Factor O2) (mean difference ¼ .85). The result indicates the misalignment of objectives between the two project stakeholders with the government concerned about the delivery of better value- for-money (Pearson, 2005); increased level of service (Efficiency Table 6 Comparison of CSFs for PPP amongst the three stakeholders. CSFs All respondents Public sector Private sector Community Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank S4 5.78 1 6.02 3 5.40 7 6.13 1 T4 5.72 2 5.88 6 5.78 2 5.51 8 S1 5.72 3 5.83 8 5.54 4 5.89 4 S.T. Ng et al. / Habitat Internat O9 5.71 4 6.10 2 5.53 5 5.64 7 S3 5.71 5 6.00 4 5.35 9 5.98 3 F4 5.67 6 5.75 9 5.93 1 5.23 16 F1 5.66 7 6.17 1 5.21 16 5.87 6 S2 5.62 8 5.85 7 5.23 15 6.00 2 O8 5.56 9 5.92 5 5.14 19 5.89 4 F6 5.47 10 5.21 25 5.68 3 5.40 10 F2 5.35 11 5.56 12 5.15 18 5.47 9 P5 5.34 12 5.29 21 5.35 9 5.38 11 O5 5.31 13 5.56 12 5.14 19 5.36 12 T2 5.30 14 5.35 16 5.31 12 5.23 16 F8 5.30 15 5.23 24 5.43 6 5.19 18 T5 5.27 16 5.69 10 5.21 16 4.98 24 P4 5.20 17 5.29 21 5.09 23 5.28 14 P3 5.18 18 5.10 27 5.36 8 4.98 24 F7 5.14 19 4.94 33 5.25 14 5.15 20 S6 5.13 20 5.33 18 4.89 26 5.30 13 T3 5.13 21 5.08 28 5.13 21 5.17 19 O4 5.10 22 5.60 11 4.88 27 4.98 24 O7 5.10 23 5.00 30 5.06 24 5.25 15 P2 5.10 24 4.96 31 5.30 13 4.92 28 F3 5.09 25 5.31 19 5.13 21 4.83 30 T6 5.06 26 5.48 14 4.81 28 5.06 22 O6 5.06 27 4.96 31 5.33 11 4.74 31 T1 5.00 28 5.17 26 4.91 25 4.98 24 O1 4.98 29 5.42 15 4.71 32 5.00 23 S5 4.95 30 5.29 21 4.76 30 4.92 28 P1 4.93 31 5.02 29 4.75 31 5.13 21 O3 4.81 32 5.35 16 4.60 34 4.62 33 O2 4.76 33 5.31 19 4.46 35 4.70 32 F5 4.65 34 4.54 35 4.80 29 4.53 34 T7 4.52 35 4.56 34 4.65 33 4.30 36 F9 4.31 36 4.04 36 4.46 35 4.34 35 Note: Items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale with 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 7 ¼ strongly agree. sector ranked them 9th and 25th while the general community ranked them 16th and 10th respectively. Similar results were also found in “government’s financial support” (Factor O6) and “stable and favourable economic environment” (Factor F7). The ranking exercise further unveiled the different interest of the private sector to the public facilities and services from the government and the general community, particularly on rankings of “effective control over the private consortium” (Factors O8), “political support” (Factor P3) and “sound governmental economic policy” (Factor F8). Additionally, as perceived from the public sector, the “cost effectiveness” (Factor F1) and possibility of “matching govern- ment’s strategic and long-term objectives” (Factor O9) are their primary concerns. On the other hand, four social factors occupied the top five CSFs from the general community perspective. All interviewees also strongly agreed that social factors should be the most important concern of the general community while financial factors would attract the least attention of the general community when assessing the feasibility of a PPP project. In order to reveal a clearer picture of the difference on the mean score of the 36 listed CSFs for PPP projects in perspectives between the different parties of stakeholders, t-tests were carried out (Fig. 2). The Levene’s test was used to determine whether equal variances between the two groups should be assumed. A signifi- cance of greater than .1 means equal variance can be assumed. Subsequent to the Levene’s test, independent sample t-tests were conducted to test for the significance of the mean difference on the CSFs between any two groups. With a 99% confidence level (i.e. a significance level of .01, 2-tailed), factors with significance level less than .01 shows that there is significance difference in the means between the two groups of respondents. Table 8 highlights the results of the independent sample t-test. Public sector vs. private consortium The public and private sector are “diverse actors” contractually Table 7 Spearman’s rank correlation test between group for CSFs of PPP. Comparison rs Sig. Conclusion Public sector ranking vs. Private sector ranking .380 .022 Reject H0 at 5% sig. level, and thus accept the Ha Public sector ranking vs. General community ranking .697 .000 Reject H0 at 1% sig. level, and thus accept the Ha Private sector ranking vs. General community ranking .619 .000 Reject H0 at 1% sig. level, and thus accept the Ha H0 ¼ No significant correlation on the rankings of PPP’s CSFs between two groups. Ha ¼ Significant correlation on the rankings of PPP’s CSFs between two groups. Reject H0 if the significance level (p-value) is less than the allowable value of 5% (2- tailed). ional 36 (2012) 423e432 429 Unit, 2003); fostering country’s economic development (MOMA, 1999); optimisation of financial and social benefits with minimum government support (World Bank, 1998), and various staff issues, Public sector vs. general community 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 S4 T4 S1 O9 S3 F4 F1 S2 O8 F6 F2 P5 O5 T2 F8 T5 P4 P3 F7 S6 T3 O4 O7 P2 F3 T6 O6 T1 O1 S5 P1 O3 O2 F5 T7 F9 Item No. M e a n S c o r e All respondents Public Sector Private Sector Community Fig. 2. Cross-comparison of CSFs among respondents. S.T. Ng et al. / Habitat International 36 (2012) 423e432430 whereas the major factors considered by the private sector are profitability of the project (Ashley et al., 1998); business opportu- nities generated by the project (Industry Canada, 2003; Pearson, 2005); appropriateness of risk allocation as well as the favour- ability of existing legislative and regulatory environment (Kershaw, 2003; Zhang & Kumaraswamy, 2001). The majority of the inter- viewees (6 out of 8) also expressed the view that profit margin should be the most important evaluation criterion taken by the private sector, which is quite different from those required by the government. Table 8 Factors with significant difference between groups under t-test. CSF Levene’s test for equality of variances t-test Assumption F Sig. t Public sector vs. Private sector F1 Equal variances not assumed 11.317 .001 5.20 O2 Equal variances assumed 2.379 .125 4.84 O8 Equal variances assumed .948 .332 3.87 O3 Equal variances assumed .870 .353 3.53 O4 Equal variances assumed .228 .634 3.45 O1 Equal variances assumed .018 .894 3.51 T6 Equal variances assumed .176 .676 2.76 S3 Equal variances assumed 1.009 .317 3.74 S2 Equal variances assumed .657 .419 3.04 S4 Equal variances assumed .941 .334 3.13 O9 Equal variances not assumed 2.923 .090 3.28 T5 Equal variances assumed 1.200 .275 2.71 Public sector vs. General community O3 Equal variances assumed .168 .683 3.18 T5 Equal variances not assumed 3.096 .082 3.23 O4 Equal variances assumed .030 .862 2.81 O2 Equal variances assumed 1.851 .177 3.20 Private sector vs. General community S2 Equal variances assumed .044 .835 �4.06 O8 Equal variances assumed 1.015 .316 �3.74 S4 Equal variances assumed .956 .330 �3.82 F4 Equal variances assumed 1.195 .276 3.18 T5 Equal variances not assumed 4.409 .038 �3.16 S3 Equal variances assumed .217 .642 �3.50 Note: 2-tailed sig. < .01. While it was anticipated that government is representing the interest of the general public, significant differences were found on ratings of the CSFs for feasibility evaluation of PPP projects given by the two parties. These include: “existence of a resolution for any civil service staff redundancy” (Factor O3); “service quality can be easily defined and objectively measured” (Factor T5); “supportive- ness and commitment of staff to the project” (Factor O4); and “possibility of significant staff redundancy” (Factor O2). For all these factors, ratings given by the public sector were higher than that perceived by the general community. Despite that the public sector for equality of means df Sig. (2-tailed) Mean Diff. Std. Error Diff. 9 125.8 .000 .95 .183 8 126 .000 .85 .175 1 126 .000 .78 .201 4 126 .001 .75 .213 6 126 .001 .73 .211 1 126 .001 .70 .201 2 126 .007 .67 .241 0 126 .000 .65 .174 0 126 .003 .63 .207 6 126 .002 .62 .198 4 118.9 .001 .58 .176 5 126 .008 .47 .175 6 99 .002 .73 .230 6 92.1 .002 .71 .218 1 99 .006 .62 .222 8 99 .002 .61 .192 3 131 .000 �.78 .191 9 131 .000 �.75 .200 1 131 .000 �.73 .192 6 131 .002 .70 .219 8 126.2 .002 �.66 .207 8 131 .001 �.63 .180 rnat would consider both the interests of the private consortium and the general community in undergoing PPP, the government appears to deliberate more holistically on the success factors to determine whether to the PPP is feasible. Private consortium vs. general community Comparing the results given by the private consortium and the general community, significant difference in ratings were found on 6 factors as shown in Table 8. Of these factors, the general community generally gave higher ratings than the private sector except on “project is of financial interest to private sector” (Factor F4). While the general community is also one of the major stake- holders in a PPP project, very few scholars have discussed their concerns in a PPP project. Flanigan (1997) and Pearson (2005) identified evaluation factors which are imperative to the commu- nity. They included the benefits of: overall value-for-money, lower cost of government (hence lower taxes), innovation, reliable services, level of service charge, job opportunities, etc. These concerns apparently are distinct from those of the private consor- tium. However, addressing the factors concerned by the three key stakeholders for any PPP projects is important to the project success. Given the possible divergence in interests among the three stakeholders of PPP projects, the theory on alliances is considered relevant in this endeavour so as to promote mutual recognition and understanding. Many theories and models have been proposed to describe the emergence and operation of strategic alliances, and these include the transaction cost economics, game theory, stra- tegic behaviour model, strategic decision model, social exchange theory, power dependence theory (Gray & Wood, 1991; Smith, Carroll, & Ashford, 1995) and more recently resource-based theory (Das & Teng, 2000). Roumboutsos and Chiara (2009) believed that a thorough political, economic, social and techno- logical (PEST) analysis is desirable at the feasibility stage of a PPP project. Through which, appropriate measures can be introduced to align the objectives of different stakeholders through the engage- ment exercise. Conclusions The initial feasibility of a PPP project contributes directly to the overall success of the project. It is thus important to explore the CSFs for evaluation in the initial stage to ensure PPP is feasible and successful. Since PPP is a tripartite partnership which involves three parties of stakeholders including the public sector, private consortium as well as the general community (end-users), feasi- bility evaluation should address the CSFs of all parties so as to achieve a “triple win” situation. A questionnaire survey and expert interviews were conducted to glean local information and perceptions of the key project stakeholders relating to these success factors for PPP projects. The most critical factor for evaluating PPP project especially to be considered by the general public is an acceptable level of toll/ tariff. Cost effectiveness comparing to the traditional forms of project delivery and financial attractiveness are the most important factors to be deliberated for PPP projects as ranked by the public sector and private consortium respectively. Besides, the existence of a long-term demand for the proposed services, availability of strong private consortium, alignment with government’s strategic objectives, as well as reliable service delivery are also rated as important success factors. The findings further reveal the misalignment of objectives among the key stakeholders for PPP projects. Hence, evaluating the availability of success factors at the initial stage becomes indispensable to delivering public services S.T. Ng et al. / Habitat Inte and infrastructurework. PPP project partnersmay be analysedwith respect to their individual and mutual strategic interest, in order to identify the partnership potential. More importantly, active participation and engagement of the general community during feasibility stage and scheme development may minimise future conflicts. Hence, a new concept of publiceprivate-people partner- ship (i.e. P4) should be thoughtfully considered and promoted. Results of this study show the relative importance of the eval- uation criteria considered by different parties of stakeholders in feasibility evaluation of a PPP project which leads to the ultimate outcome and provision of a wide variety of benefits through delivery public service projects for society. The study is not only significant in contributing to the field of construction procurement strategies and practical information for successful PPP applications and implementation, but also valuable in assisting key project stakeholders in minimising the detriments brought about by potential risks arising and maximising the benefits derived from implementing the PPP strategy. A series of in-depth case studies on various PPP projects should be launched in the future to further verify and enrich the applicability and reliability of the CSFs iden- tified in this study. Acknowledgements The authors gratefully acknowledge the Research Grant Council of the Government of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government for financially supporting this research study through the Public Policy Research Grant (Grant No.: 7010-PPR-4). Special gratitude is also extended to industry practitioners and experts who participated in the interviews and contributed their valuable input in completing the survey questionnaires of this study. References Abdul-Aziz, A. R. (2001). Unraveling of BOT scheme: Malaysia’s indah water kon- sortium. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 127(6), 457e460. Akinsola, A. O., Potts, K. F., Kdekugri, I., & Harris, F. C. (1997). Identification and evaluation of factors influencing variations on building projects. International Journal of Project Management, 15(4), 263e267. Albright, S. C., Winston, W. L., & Zappe, C. (2006). Data analysis & decision making with Microsoft� Excel. Pacific Grove, California: Thomson/South-Western. Ashley, D., Bauman, R., Carroll, J., Diekmann, J., & Finlayson, F. (1998). Evaluation viability of privatized transportation projects. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 4(3), 102e110. Asian Business. (1996). Special report on Asia’s infrastructure boom. March. Asian Business. Atkinson, R. (1999). Project management: cost, time and quality, two best guesses and a phenomenon, it’s time to accept other success criteria. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 337e342. Birgonul, M. T., & Ozdogan, I. (1998). A proposed framework for governmental organizations in the implementation of BOT model. In. Proceedings: 14th ARCOM annual conference, September 9e11, Vol. 2 (pp. 517e526). Reading, United Kingdom: University of Reading. Birnie, I. (1999). Private finance initiative (PFI) e UK construction industry response. Journal of Construction Procurement, 5(1), 5e14. Boyfield, K. (1992). Private sector funding of public sector infrastructure. Public Money & Management, 12(2), 41e46. Brodie, M. J. (1995). Public / private joint ventures: the government as partner bane or benefit? Real Estate Issues, 20(2), 33e39. Chan, A. P. C., Scott, D., & Chan, A. P. L. (2004). Factors affecting the success of a construction project. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 130(1), 153e155. Chan, A. P. C., & Yeong, C. M. (1995). A comparison of strategies for reducing vari- ations. Construction Management and Economics, 13(5), 467e473. Cheung, E., Chan, A. P. C., & Kajewski, S. (2009). Reasons for implementing public private partnership projects: perspectives from Hong Kong, Australian and British practitioners. Journal of Property Investment and Finance, 27(1), 81e95. Cheung, E., Chan, A. P. C., & Kajewski, S. (2010). Suitability of procuring large public works by PPP in Hong Kong. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 17(3), 292e308. Chua, D. K. H., Kog, Y. C., & Loh, P. K. (1999). Critical success factors for different project objectives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 125(3), 142e150. ional 36 (2012) 423e432 431 Dailarni, M., & Klein, M. (1997). Government support to private infrastructure projects in emerging markets. In T. Irwin (Ed.), World bank Latin American and Caribbean studies viewpoints: Dealing with public risk in private infrastructure Lam, C. L. (2005). PPP e opportunities for the private sector. In Proceedings: Public S.T. Ng et al. / Habitat International 36 (2012) 423e432432 (pp. 21e42), Washington. Das, T. K., & Teng, B. S. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances. Journal of Management, 26(1), 31e61. Duffield, C. F. (2005). PPPs in Australia. In Proceedings: Public private partnerships e Opportunities and challenges, February 22 (pp. 5e14). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre. Efficiency Unit. (2003). Serving the community by using the private sector e An introductory guide to public private partnerships (PPPs), August 2003. Hong Kong: Efficiency Unit, Government of HKSAR. FIDIC. (2001). Project financing sustainable solutions e Adding value through inno- vation re-assessing the priorities. Geneva: Federation Internationale des Ingen- ieurs Conseils. Finnerty, J. D. (1996). Project financing: Asset-based financial engineering. New York: John Wiley& Sons. Flanigan, J. L. (1997). Private/public partnership: a balancing act. Public Works, 128(10), 49e52. Goven, J., & Langer, E. R. (2009). The potential of public engagement in sustainable waste management: designing the future for biosolids in New Zealand. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(2), 921e930. Grant, T. (1996). Keys to successful public-private partnerships. Canadian Business Review, 23(3), 27e28. Gray, B., & Wood, D. J. (1991). Collaborative alliances: moving from practice to theory. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(3), 3e22. Grilo, L., Hardcastle, C., Akintoye, A., Silva, S., Melhado, S., & Edwards, P. (2005). Challenges and opportunities for the Brazilian public private partnerships program. In Proceedings: Public private partnerships e Opportunities and chal- lenges, February 22 (pp. 19e31). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre. Gupta, M. C., & Narasimham, S. V. (1998). Discussion of ‘CSFs in competitive tendering and negotiation model for BOT projects’ by R.L.K. Tiong. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 124(5), 430. Hambros, S. G. (1999). Publiceprivate partnerships for highways: Experience, struc- ture, financing, applicability and comparative assessment. Ottawa, Canada: The Council. Han, S. H., & Diekmann, J. E. (2001). Making a risk-based bid decision for overseas construction projects. Construction Management and Economics, 19(8), 765e776. Hardcastle, C., Edwards, P. J., Akintoye, A., & Li, B. (2005). Critical success factors for PPP / PFI projects in the UK construction industry: a factory analysis approach. In Proceedings: Public private partnerships e Opportunities and challenges, February 22 (pp. 75e83). Hong Kong: Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre. Heinke, G. W., & Wei, J. K. C. (2000). Innovative approaches to financing of Initiatives such as sustainable infrastructure and building, planning, design, construction and operation. Final Report, HKUST. Hong Kong: Consultancy for Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC). HM Treasury. (2004). Value for money assessment guidance. London: HMSO. Industry Canada. (2003). The public sector comparator e A Canadian best practices guide. Canada: Services Industries Branch, Industry Canada. Jaselskis, E. J., & Ashley, D. B. (1991). Optimal allocation of project management resources for achieving success. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 117(2), 321e340. Jefferies, M., Gameson, R., & Rowlinson, S. (2002). Critical success factors of the BOOT procurement system: reflection from the stadium Australia case study, engineering. Construction and Architectural Management, 9(4), 352e361. Johnston, F. A. (2004). Innovations in procuring highways management and maintenance. In Proceedings: Safer highways, proven and innovation technologies, June 12. Joint Professional Centre, The Institution of Highways and Trans- portation e Hong Kong Branch, HKSAR. Jones, I., Zamani, H., & Reehal, R. (1996). Financing models for new transport infra- structure. Luxembourg: OPEC. Kanter, R. M. (1999). From spare change to real change. Harvard Business Review, 77(2), 122e132. Karning, P. F., Olomolaiye, P. O., Holt, G. D., & Harris, F. C. (1997). Factors influencing construction time and cost overruns on high-rise projects in Indonesia. Construction Management and Economics, 15(1), 83e94. Ke, Y., Wang, S. Q., Chan, A. P. C., & Lam, P. T. I. (2010). Preferred risk allocation in China’s public-private partnership (PPP) projects. International Journal of Project Management, 28(5), 482e492. Keong, C. H., Tiong, R. L. K., & Alum, J. (1997). Conditions for successful privately initiated infrastructure projects. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers e Civil Engineering, 120(May), 59e65. Kernaghan, K. (1993). Partnership and public administration: conceptual and practical considerations. Canadian Public Administration, 36(1), 57e76. Kershaw, M. (2003). Public private partnerships as a new mode of private sector involvement in the procurement of public facilities in Hong Kong. In Symposium on private sector involvement in the procurement of public facilities, December 17. Hong Kong: Architectural Services Department, Government of HKSAR, presentation material is available online at http://www.archsd.gov.hk/psi/ Report2004web/05_speech_Micheal_Kershaw_powerpoint_files/frame.htm. Kouwenhoven, V. (1993). The rise of the public private partnership: a model of the management of public-private cooperation. In J. Kooiman (Ed.), Modern gover- nance: New government-society interactions. London: Sage. private partnerships e Opportunities and challenges, February 22 (pp. 32e34). Hong Kong: Convention and Exhibition Centre. Mahalingam, A. (2010). Experiences in Indian cities: barriers, enablers, and the way forward. Journal of ConstructionEngineeringandManagement, ASCE,136(4), 419e429. McQuaid, R.W. (2000). The theoryofpartnership:whyhave partnerships? Public private partnerships: Theory and practice in international perspective London: Routledge. Medda, F. (2006). A game theory approach for the allocation of risks in transport public private partnerships. International Journal of Project Management, 25(3), 213e218. MOMA. (1999). Public private partnership e A guide for local government. British Columbia, Canada: Ministry of Municipal Affairs. NAO. (2001). Managing the relationship to secure a successful partnership in PFI projects. London: National Audit Office. HC375. Norusis, M. J. (2002). SPSS 11.0 guide to data analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Oppenheim, A. N. (1992). Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measure- ment. London: Pinter Publishers. Ozdogan, I. (1996). Risk management of BOT projects in developing countries, M.Sc. thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey. Ozdoganm, I. D., & Birgonul, M. T. (2000). A decision support framework for project sponsors in the planning stage of build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects. Construction Management and Economics, 18(3), 343e353. Pearson, M. (2005). Opportunities and obstacles for wider adoption of PPP models in Hong Kong. 8 pages Proceedings: Public private partnerships e Opportunities and challenges, February 22. Hong Kong: Hong Kong Convention and Exhibition Centre. Powell, R. R. (1991). Basic researchmethods for librarians. Norwood, NJ: Alex Pub. Corp. Qiao, L., Wang, S. Q., Tiong, R. L. K., & Chan, T. S. (2001). Framework for critical success factors of BOT projects in China. The Journal of Project Finance, 7(1), 53e61. Roumboutsos, A., & Chiara, N. (2009). Public private partnerships: a strategic partnering approach. In Proceedings: Revamping PPPs’ symposium e From ‘Revisiting and Rethinking’ to ‘Revamping and Revitalising’ PPPs, 28 February 2009. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong. Sanvido, V., Parfitt, K., Guveris, M., & Coyle, M. (1992). Critical success factors for construction projects. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 118(1), 94e111. Smith, K. G., Carroll, S. J., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Intra- and inter-organizational cooperation: toward a research agenda. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 7e23. Songer, A. D., & Molenaar, K. R. (1997). Project characteristics for successful public- sector design-build. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 123(1), 34e40. Stein, S. W. (1995). Construction financing and BOT projects. International Bar Association. International Business Lawyer, 23(4), 173e180. Stonehouse, J. H., Hudson, A. R., & O’Keefe, M. J. (1996). Private-public partnerships: the Toronto hospital experience. Canadian Business Review, 23(2), 17e20, Ottawa. Takim, R., Abdul-Rahman, R., Ismail, K., & Egbu, C. O. (2009). The acceptability of private finance initiative (PFI) scheme in Malaysia. Asian Social Science, 4(12), 71e82. Tam, C. M. (1999). Build-operate-transfer model for infrastructure developments in Asia: reasons for successes and failures. International Journal of Project Management, 17(6), 377e382. Tiong, R. L. K. (1996). CSFs in competitive tendering and negotiation model for BOT projects. Journal of ConstructionEngineeringandManagement,ASCE,122(3),205e211. Treatmann, F. (2007). Citizenship and consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 7(2), 147e158. Walker, D. H. T. (1995). An investigation into construction time performance. Construction Management and Economics, 13(3), 263e274. Walker, D. H. T., & Vines, M. W. (2000). Australian multi-unit residential project construction time performance factors. Engineering Construction and Architec- tural Management, 7(3), 278e284. World Bank. (1998). Bidding for private concessions e The use of world bank guar- antees, RMC discussion paper series 120. Washington, D.C: World Bank Project Finance and Guarantees Department. Yener, A. P. (1998). Risk perception and trends of Turkish construction companies, M.Sc. thesis, Middle East Technical University, Turkey. Zantke, G., & Mangels, B. (1999). Public sector client-private sector project: trans- ferring the state construction administration into private hands. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 6(1), 78e87. Zhang, X. Q. (2004). Concessionaire selection: methods and criteria. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, ASCE, 130(2), 235e244. Zhang, X. Q. (2005). Critical success factors for public-private partnerships in infrastructure development. Journal of Construction Engineering and Manage- ment, ASCE, 131(1), 3e14. Zhang, X. Q., & Kumaraswamy, M. M. (2001). Hong Kong experience in managing BOT projects. Journal of ConstructionEngineeringandManagement, ASCE,127(2),154e162. Zhang, W. R., Wang, S. Q., Tiong, R. L. K., Ting, S. K., & Ashley, D. (1998). Risk management of Shanghai’s privately financed Yan’an Donglu Tunnels. Engi- neering, Construction and Architectural Management, 5(4), 399e409. Factors influencing the success of PPP at feasibility stage – A tripartite comparison study in Hong Kong Introduction Literature review: critical success factors for PPP projects Research methodology Critical success factors Group comparisons Overall observations Public sector vs. private consortium Public sector vs. general community Private consortium vs. general community Conclusions Acknowledgements References