One of the key factors that have significant and positive influence on economic growth, especially in the developing countries, is infrastructure development (ADB, 1996).
However, infrastructure development requires massive capital investments because most infrastructure projects are large in size and have a high level of complexity (Grimsey & Lewis, 2002). Due to the capital-intensive nature of infrastructure projects, most developing countries do not have the required amount of capital to develop the necessary infrastructure on their own.
Without the required capital, these nations would not be able to properly develop their infrastructure sector, and without these developments their economic condition could suffer. Therefore, in order to keep pace with the economic growth and the increasing demand from the ever-growing population, the private sector participation was introduced with the intention to assist the government of these developing countries by providing additional capital investment to finance the infrastructure sector development (Walker & Smith, 1995).
However, the private participation in infrastructure in the East Asia and Pacific region is not regarded as a challenger or rival, instead it is utilized to complement the investment made by government agencies and/or state-owned enterprises. As a result of this approach, private participation is not utilized to increase the efficiency of the existing enterprises but rather to build new assets through Greenfield projects (World Bank, 2002). A Greenfield project is a project where a particular private entity or a public-private joint venture builds and operates a new facility for a period of time, which has been determined previously in the project contract, and the facility itself may be returned to the public sector at the end of the concession period (Beery & Crow, 2003). These projects can be broken down into several sub-classes, such as buildlease-own, build-own-transfer, build-own-operate-transfer, build-own-operate, build-operate-transfer, etc. However, the build-operate-transfer (BOT) approach is widely accepted as the preferred form of infrastructure financing, not only in Asia but also in many countries around the world (Lombardo, 1999).
Private sector participation had actually existed as early as the 17th century (Walker & Smith, 1995); however, there are currently still a lot of projects with private participation that have failed. There are several things that could cause these types of projects to fail and they are mostly due to the following reasons (Kumaraswany & Zhang, 2001):
1. Poor arrangement and coordination between government agencies in packaging the projects.
2. Insufficient legal arrangements.
3. Lack of coordination between private and public sectors.
4. The unwillingness of the host government to provide guarantees against the risks originating from the unstable economical and political environment.
The results of previous studies on risk allocation and project success is still insufficient because they have not been able to assess whether or not the risks have been properly allocated, which party actually has the ability and willingness to accept the consequences of these risks and what needs to be done to achieve proper risk allocation. Therefore, there is a need to develop a guideline that can help assess the ability and willingness of the parties that are involved in these kinds of projects to help achieve proper risk allocation and ultimately project success.
Mr. Martinus P. Abednego made a case study on PPP as his dissertation thesis for his Ph. D. degree. The main objective of his research is to assess the relationships between risk allocation and project success by developing a common ground concept of proper risk allocation and utilize its result as the foundation to produce a guideline that can help determine proper risk allocation arrangement at the project initiation stage as well as perform as a control system for the project and its participants along the concession period of a tollway project developed under PPP procurement system. From his main objective, several sub-objectives were further elaborated as follows:
1. To identify the project risks in each stage of project development based on the perceptions of the public sector (government agencies) and private sectors (concessionaire and contractors).
2. To identify the critical success factors that are significant for project success based on the goals and objectives of the public and private sectors.
3. To investigate the risk allocation arrangements used by the public and private sectors.
4. To investigate the influence of risk allocation arrangements on project success.
Moreover, the expected outcomes from his research are:
An improved theory of relationship between risk allocation and project success, especially in tollway projects that are developed under PPP procurement system.
A conceptual framework of good project governance (GPG) for assessing proper risk allocation so that it may enhance the project performance thus achieving an overall project success.
In his overall conclusions, he cited that Public-Private Partnership can be defined in many ways depending on which perspective one chooses. Regardless of differences in perspective, all possess similar characteristics (Peters, 1998). These characteristics can be summarized into a general perception of PPP as a form of partnership of at least one public and one private entity in which each entity contributes its key resource(s) with a willingness to accept the consequences that are associated with the responsibilities. Accordingly, a lot of advantages can be obtained from its implementation, especially in the development of public infrastructure. One of the main advantages is in terms of project financing. Unfortunately what generally happens is the exact opposite, especially when it is put into practice in countries such as Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam that has less or no experience regarding the approach. The common misconception of the PPP procurement system is that the government as the owner of the project has more authority in the partnership, thus considered as a justification for being superior towards the other stakeholders.
Additionally, the general approach in dealing with the consequences of the risks that occur in projects developed under this system is through problem solving rather than prevention. As a result, the private sector has no choice but to accept these consequences for most of the times even though it does not have the required resources and experience to manage the unanticipated losses. When such situation continues, the possibility of projects experiencing further problems in the future will be greater - making it even more difficult to achieve success, both in the short-term and the long-term. Unfortunately, the majority of stakeholders do not realize that projects developed under this system would have to deal with short-term issues as well as long-term issues.
Mr. Abednego’s research provides an alternative point of view in observing PPP projects by pointing out that these projects are not only confronted with project management problems but also they have project governance concerns. Good Project Governance concept was developed in an effort to ensure the achievement of long-term project success. It has the characteristics of: 1) Making the right decision at the right time; 2) Ensuring contract fairness; 3) Information transparency; 4) Responsiveness; 5) Continuous project control and monitoring; 6) Equality; 7) Effectiveness and efficiency and 8) Accountability (Abednego & Ogunlana, 2006). Four core principles of GPG were established from this to help assess the relationship between risk allocation and project success in each of the case studies. These core principles are fairness, transparency, accountability and sustainability. Each of these principles was further devolved into subcomponents and each subcomponent into key analytical issues, which are then used to assess whether or not risks have been properly allocated and to judge how it affects project success.
Mr. Abednego has several significant conclusions made from his research and each of them is briefly described in the following sections.
1. Perceptions on risk and its allocation - The result of the analysis shows that the government has a clearly different perception compared to the private sector with regards to what is considered as potential risk. In all of the case studies, the governments tend to be more concerned about the problems that may occur during the construction stage of the project. On the other hand, the private sectors are more concerned about the lack of commitment and support from the government that shows in the existing regulations, laws and policies that tend to be discriminatory and insufficient in providing the necessary protection for private investments. This shows that the private sector is more concerned about the source of the problem rather than the actual problem itself because of the belief that problems can be prevented if necessary improvements are made towards the source. Although the private sector is more than willing to be responsible for the consequences of decisions and actions, however, they also expect the government to accept its own share of responsibilities, starting by honoring agreements and providing the necessary guarantees for the private sector, this condition most of the time if they want to be involved in such projects. This puts them in an inferior position relative to the government and eventually prevents project risks from being allocated properly.
2. Perceptions on project success - the following are the significant success factors that were identified from the case studies:
Ability to carry out negotiations
Accurate estimation (traffic demand & construction cost)
Advance risk management system
Availability of the required resources
Communication method
Compliance on agreement/contract
Continuous project monitoring and control
Attractive investment environment/condition
Non-discriminative and non-ambiguous agreement/contract
Effective project management
Equality of rights and responsibilities among stakeholders
Experience
Fair compensation policy
Fair tendering process
Financial achievement
Functionality
Good contractor/concessionaire selection system
Good coordination
Good managerial capabilities
Government guarantee
Government support
Improved laws/regulations related to PPP procurement system
Information dissemination
Market/demand oriented
Minimize government interference
Minimize land acquisition problem
Less political pressure
On-time project completion
Professionalism
Project quality achievement
Proper infrastructure development planning
Proper project financing strategy
Public participation
Reasonable payback structure
Sufficient time to complete project engineering design
Trust
There is a lack of knowledge with respect to the unique characteristics of projects that are developed under the PPP scheme. Most stakeholders do not realize that this kind of projects have governance concerns in addition to management concerns. Consequently, PPP projects are still managed like regular construction projects that are considered to be successful as long as they manage to deal with the short-term issues. Unfortunately, without acknowledging and understanding the importance of addressing the long-term issues, the overall success of PPP projects will be affected.
3. Assessment based on the fairness principle - The main issue discovered from the case studies that prevent the risks to be allocated properly and creating unfair conditions is government’s unwillingness to provide the necessary support and guarantees that would protect private sector investments. This condition is worsened by the ambiguity in the agreements between the government and private sector, and also by the constant interference by the government during the whole course of the project. As a result, the private sector was not able to properly identify the project risks, causing them to involuntarily assume the consequences that were not actually theirs. This would negatively affect the private sector’s revenue in the long run and eventually jeopardize the overall success of projects.
4. Assessment based on the transparency principle - Information dissemination is often a problem in PPP projects. Instead of being shared, it is often obscured; resulting in misperception and misinformation in the project. Unfortunately, this condition is often exploited by the government for fear that the information may be used by the private sector to make claims. Adding to the fact that the existing information management system is insufficient and still requires further improvements, these circumstances prevented the private sector from developing accurate plans and make better preparations. In addition, the government had not also been able or willing to make reasonable adjustments on the project’s financing strategy as previously agreed. Due to this lack of information and financial transparency, conflicts and disputes are inevitable, causing additional problems.
5. Assessment based on the accountability principle
The government and the private sector often overlooked the end-users of the infrastructure as well as its surrounding communities in the process of developing projects. Aside from the Don Muang Tollway project, the projects in Indonesia and Vietnam did not involve any public hearings. As such, the people were given no chance to raise their concerns or even offer suggestions for the project, which prevented them from participating and contributing directly to the project. Regarding the quality issue, most stakeholders refer to it in terms of the physical condition of the infrastructure whereas it should also include the management value and this, unfortunately, is the real situation. Unless the public is given more opportunity to be involved in the development process of projects and quality, both physical and managerial, is improved, the government is (here considered to be) accountable for the negative consequences that it may cause.
6. Assessment based on the sustainability principle
Lack of coordination between government agencies and also between the government and the private sector has prevented the stakeholders of PPP projects from sustaining their partnership in the long run. Consequently, this would affect project performance. For example, lack of coordination would result in inappropriate information dissemination creating difficulties to produce accurate estimation in terms of project cost. The latter situation would then further affect the development of a suitable project financing strategy and payback structure. Ultimately, disputes are inevitable and the sustainability of the project is vulnerable.
7. Overall achievement in terms of Good Project Governance
Based on the assessments that have been made using the four core principles of GPG, the risks in the three case studies were still allocated improperly. This condition influenced the performance of the projects, not only during the initiation and construction stages but also for throughout whole concession period. Consequently, it prevented the projects from achieving overall success. Therefore, these projects cannot be considered to have good project governance because they failed to deal with most of the issues that have long-term implications on the projects, which are mainly caused by improper risk allocation.
His thesis abstract is copied and posted.
Abstract
Studies have shown that there are increasing trends of using Public-Private Partnership (PPP) procurement system in developing countries, including the Southeast Asia countries. In addition to this, the concept of good governance is also becoming a more perceived issue, especially in state-owned enterprises. With such development in the construction industry, it is important to understand what would be the best approach to govern (manage) a construction project, especially public infrastructure projects under PPP procurement system such as tollway projects, so that it may increase the project’s level of success.
Proper risk allocation is considered as one of the critical success factors to enhance the performance of PPP projects. However, parties that are involved in a PPP project typically have different perception of risks, risk allocation strategy as well as project success. Moreover, PPP projects are generally challenged with both project management problems, which require day-to-day supervision (short-term) as well as partnership problems that require more of a strategic approach (long-term). Due to this unique condition, PPP projects can be considered to have governance concerns in addition to management concerns because it deals with monitoring and overseeing strategic direction as well as strategic decision-making (Mueller, 1981).
This research is conducted to examine the influence of risk allocation towards project success. Since proper risk allocation is considered to be an essential part for attaining good project governance, therefore, it is assumed that the performance level of a project would increase due to the proper allocation thus generating a successful project. A good project governance concept was developed as a result of this research. Its four core principles, fairness, transparency, accountability and sustainability is used to assess the influence of the risk allocation arrangements that were applied towards the project success, especially in the long-term. Three tollway projects from Indonesia, Thailand and Vietnam were selected as case studies for this research. The research discovered that the government clearly has a different perception of risk and proper risk allocation compared to the private sector. However, these two stakeholders still lack the knowledge to the unique characteristics of PPP projects and fail to recognize the fact that this kind of projects has governance concerns in addition to management concerns. As a result of their short-term oriented point of view, the project’s long-term issues were often overlooked, affecting its overall success.
No comments:
Post a Comment