Journal of Construction Engineering and Management

Public-private partnerships (PPP) for infrastructure development and management have received significant attention in academic, institutional, and political circles over roughly the last two decades. This attention was prompted, to a great extent, by early experiments with PPP-type arrangements in Australia, Canada, and the United States coupled with the United Kingdom’s Private Finance Initiative policy—not to mention the experience of other parts of the world such as Asia, continental Europe, and South America. PPP policies and practices have evolved in other world regions, but the United States remains a relatively slow mover in this market. While varying explanations for this circumstance are plausible, the situation can play to America’s advantage since the nation can capitalize upon the tested experience of its international counterparts. Drawing upon data and information collected from two principal sources: (1) case histories of PPP projects in North America to date and (2) a scanning tour of Australia, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom in 2008, misconceptions regarding PPPs are clarified, contemporary international policies and practices are characterized, and recommendations for implementing PPPs for transportation infrastructure are made. The principal intent of this paper is to trigger a dialogue about PPPs and how they might improve America’s infrastructure assets.

Developing and developed countries need to increase their investments in infrastructure to support economic growth, productivity, and the competitiveness of their economies to enhance the well being of their populations. Some of these investments, being long term, illiquid and considered public services, tend to be undertaken by the public sector. Nevertheless, in some sectors and at different points in history, there has been considerable participation by the private sector. For the purposes of enhancing these investments, all possible options of private and public participation must be considered and the needs are such that ideology and semantics should not get in the way. From the very extensive experience in developing countries, it has been learned that selecting the proper modalities can enhance the long term viability of the investments, can increase the number of bankable projects, attract investments and reduce backlash from failures. These lessons can be applied to developed countries as well. This paper presents a model for the selection of the most suitable service delivery modalities adapted to the prevailing local conditions of the country.

Recent studies indicate that India must invest more than $150 billion over the next 5 years in the development of urban infrastructure. Urban local bodies lack the financial resources and the capacity to develop these projects on their own, pointing to a large role that public-private partnerships (PPPs) need to play in the development of urban infrastructure. This paper uses a combination of archival sources, case studies, and insights from a recently concluded roundtable discussion on PPPs to highlight five key barriers that PPP projects face in the urban Indian context. These barriers are a distrust between the public and private sector, a lack of political willingness to develop PPPs, the absence of an enabling institutional environment for PPPs, a lack of project preparation capacity on the part of the public sector, and poorly designed and structured PPP projects. A series of measures that the Government of India has undertaken to enable PPPs are evaluated and it is observed that these programs address only three of the five barriers identified. A set of nine additional strategies emanating from the roundtable are then proposed, that, in addition to the existing measures outlined by the Government of India, can help comprehensively address the challenges that PPPs in urban infrastructure that India is facing. This could help improve the quantity and quality of infrastructure services in Indian cities.

Multinational engineering consultants, contractors, and real estate developers work on projects in various countries, encountering many challenges that arise from cross-national differences. These projects frequently bring together diverse participants in an unfamiliar environment. In these situations, firms are exposed to different “institutions”—regulations, norms, and cognitive-cultural beliefs—that can increase misunderstandings, delays, and costs. Knowledge of these institutional elements is critical to create a project that is both locally sustainable and profitable for the firm. Departing from institutional theory and the knowledge-based view of the firm, we conduct exploratory research based on interviews from informants in 15 firms to identify the methods that multinational real estate developers, contractors, and engineers use to transfer and mobilize institutional knowledge for their global projects. We contribute to theory by adding to the developing literature that uses institutional theory to examine differences on global projects and by analyzing the specific methods firms use to transfer institutional knowledge internally, across projects and divisions. Ultimately, this research, combined with the work of others, can develop new processes for firms engaged in international projects to enhance their mobilization of institutional knowledge, and thereby improve the outcomes of international projects.

Managing the increased complexity, emerging uncertainties, and diversity of cultures on global projects is creating significant challenges for architecture, engineering, and construction firms. In global projects, differences in “institutions”—including language, beliefs, values, group norms, work practices, professional roles, industry organizations, and legal frameworks—among team members from different national backgrounds can lead to misunderstanding and conflicts that cause delays, increase costs, and reduce quality. Previous research has examined risk factors associated with international project execution. However, little research to date has explored whether reconfiguring project networks might mitigate such risks. Project organizational simulation tools have been combined with “robust design” experimental techniques to design robust project networks that can perform reliably in uncertain conditions. This paper extends project network design research to examine whether robust designs for given project networks differ between “domestic” and “global” projects, given differing organizational uncertainties. The results demonstrate that robust project network designs may differ for global project networks. This finding has significant implications for the design of project networks in an industry where firm participation in global project networks is increasing, both domestically and abroad.

High-performance teams achieve outcomes that exceed the expectations of the project and often demonstrate unique or innovative approaches within a final solution. The foundation of this high performance is the ability to focus on the success of the team over individual objectives. However, the recognition of this emphasis is based on the establishment of professional trust and strong communications between the team members. The social network model of construction introduced a dual-focused approach to enhancing these elements and creating high-performance project teams. The approach emphasizes balancing both a traditional project management emphasis on efficiency of communications with a focus on the social factors that move the project team from efficient to effective. In this paper, the model is extended to present the results of four studies of organizations that are full-service engineering companies that also provide construction oversight services. The paper presents the results of these studies in terms of the social network model and the achievement of high performance in the project teams. Analytical and graphical results are presented based on social network analysis techniques to provide a multiperspective analysis of the project teams.

Proponents claim that the adoption of building information modeling (BIM) will lead to greater efficiencies through increased collaboration. In this paper, we present research that examines the use of BIM technologies for mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and fire life safety systems (often referred to as MEP) coordination and how the introduction of BIM influences collaboration and communication. Using data from over 12 months of ethnographic observations of the MEP coordination process for two commercial construction projects and interviews with 65 industry leaders across the United States, we find that BIM-enabled projects are often tightly coupled technologically, but divided organizationally. This means that while BIM makes visible the connections among project members, it is not fostering closer collaboration across different companies. We outline the competing obligations to scope, project, and company as one cause for this division. Obligations to an individual scope of work or to a particular company can conflict with project goals. Individual leadership, especially that of the MEP coordinator in the teams we studied, often substitutes for stronger project cohesion and organization. Organizational forces and structures must be accounted for in order for BIM to be implemented successfully.

Information technologies are used across all stages of the construction process, and are crucial in the delivery of large projects. Drawing on detailed research on a construction megaproject, we take a practice-based approach to examining the practical and theoretical tensions between existing ways of working and the introduction of new coordination tools in this paper. We analyze the new hybrid practices that emerge, using insights from actor-network theory to articulate the delegation of actions to material and digital objects within ecologies of practice. The three vignettes that we discuss highlight this delegation of actions, the “plugging” and “patching” of ecologies occurring across media and the continual iterations of working practices between different types of media. By shifting the focus from tools to these wider ecologies of practice, the approach has important managerial implications for the stabilization of new technologies and practices and for managing technological change on large construction projects. We conclude with a discussion of new directions for research, oriented to further elaborating on the importance of the material in understanding change.