Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify the salient risks borne by private firms and to investigate their effective risk response strategies in public-private partnership (PPP) low-cost housing (LCH) projects in Thailand.

The paper employs grounded theory and case study methodologies to extensively analyze ten private firms’ risks and their strategic risk mitigation. As a result, the matrix of imperative risks’ root causes and the area of the project life cycle most exposed to their impacts were proposed. This included the framework of the risk response strategy application.

The private firm's risk mitigation strategies depended on the salient risks’ impact and the private firms’ predictability and controllability of the risk outcome. This included the private firm's participating objectives and core business, decision maker's risk attitude, risk perception, experience of risk, and risk assessment skill, and the project life cycle phase of risk occurrence.

Under the same characteristics of the immature PPP market in developing countries, the contractors’ effective risk management framework can be used as a guideline to complement the contractors’ decision making on risk response strategy selection and resource allocation in the PPP project life cycle.

Despite working under the familiar environment of construction risk and generous payment method in PPP-LCH projects, only few contractors were successful. The examination of risks borne and effectively responded by the private sector increases the likelihood of the project success.

Numerous studies to date have demonstrated the public-private partnership (PPP) project procurement method's failure to deliver low-cost housing (LCH) to low-income groups (LIGs) in developing countries. The purpose of this paper is to investigate critical failure factors (CFFs), and how they cause the failure of PPP-LCH program.

Grounded Theory methodology was used to gather and analyze the data in order to identify, categorize, and develop the logically causal relationships among CFFs that cause PPP-LCH program failure.

Ten CFFs in various phases of PPP-LCH project life cycle caused PPP-LCH program failure. Some CFFs resulted from ineffective PPP policy and strategy, while some were beyond the control of the project/program management team. These CFFs were inter-/intra-related to one another in a particular way.

Despite the increase in PPP-LCH projects/programs for LIGs in practice and the prevalence of failure, the studies of PPP-LCH project/program failure still suffer from insufficient conceptual clarity about the causes of these failures. The lessons learned, to some extent, help decision makers in both public and private sectors to reduce the probability of the PPP-LCH project/program failure by clearly explaining the nature of each CFF.