Search results

The purpose of this paper is to identify ways to reconfigure physical retailing to ensure it maintains a sustainable position within the town centre ecosystem in the twenty-first century. The discussion draws on the evolving service-dominant logic (S-DL) and its service ecosystems perspective and evidence of best practice provided by actors involved in town centre regeneration between 2013 and 2018.

The research adopts a case methodology drawing on data submitted and analysed as part of the Grimsey Review 2, an independent review of the UK town centres. The data set provides examples of good practice sourced from industry leaders, trade bodies, local authorities and extensive social media engagement.

The paper evaluates the response of physical retail through an S-DL and service ecosystem lens. The review of best practice suggests that physical retailers have the best chance of survival if they proactively collaborate with other actors within a wider community hub solution, align their strategic position and operations to a holistic centre place plan and take steps to actively engage operant resources of consumers in creating physical store experiences.

The paper provides an evaluation of best practice in town centre regeneration implemented between 2013 and 2018. The case offers a rich bank of examples, illustrating how physical retailers are responding to the twenty-first-century challenges facing town centres. It makes recommendations for further improvement in the three critical areas identified above.

This paper provides further empirical support for the application of an S-DL and service ecosystem perspective to place marketing. To achieve effective value co-creation, physical retailers need to align themselves more closely with other actors in the system and maximise the potential of operant (and operand) consumer resources.

The purpose of this paper is to develop a life cycle risk management framework for public private partnership (PPP) infrastructure projects that lead to the realization of value for money and balance of interests between different partners including the public and end users.

This paper draws on extensive theoretical research and literature reviews, coupled with case study methodologies. A comprehensive review of current literature in the field was first carried out. Then three PPP infrastructure projects, two from Australia and one from China, are studied to scrutinize reasons leading to their dilemma and articulate the valuable lessons learnt in relation to risk analysis and mitigation.

The paper found that properly assessing risks (financial, government's political and public's acceptance/rejection risks), ensuring value for money and protecting the public (and end users') interests are essential in PPP infrastructure projects and this can only be achieved through optimal risk identification, assessment, allocation and management from a life cycle perspective and balanced interests between the Government/public and private partners as well as product end users.

The paper was limited to proposing the framework; therefore the next step should be testing the framework.

The framework proposed in this paper should be practical and useful for professionals in managing the risks associated with the procurement of PPP infrastructure projects.

The PPP method has been increasingly used to procure large‐scale infrastructures such as freeways, railways, tunnels and bridges worldwide. While there have been many successful PPP projects, unsuccessful cases abound and studying them can help people better manage the risks in future PPP infrastructure projects. To ensure the success of PPP infrastructure projects, it is important for all partners to manage the risks from a project life cycle perspective, in which risks are identified and assessed in the earliest possible project stage and are allocated to the parties who are in the best position to control them. Furthermore, it is also important to continuous monitor the risks and develop proactive risk respond strategies throughout the project life cycle. To this end, this paper provides a life‐cycle risk management framework for PPP infrastructure projects.

One of the common law duties owed by the employer is his duty to take reasonable care for the safety of his employee. This common law duty is an implied term in the contract of employment and is therefore contractual in nature. Because of the difficulties which may arise in bringing an action in contract for breach of the employer's duty of care, the employee who has sustained injuries during the course of his employment (although he may sue either in contract of tort will normally bring a tort action.

In the context of public-private partnerships (PPPs), it has been argued that the standard valuation framework produces a paradox whereby government appears to be made better off by taking on more systematic risk. This has led to a range of approaches being applied in practice, none of which are consistent with the standard valuation approach. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate that these approaches are flawed and unnecessary.

The authors step through the proposed alternative valuation approaches and demonstrate their inconsistencies and illogical outcomes, using theory, logic and mathematical proof.

In this paper, the authors demonstrate that the proposed (alternative) approaches suffer from internal inconsistencies and produce illogical outcomes in some cases. The authors also show that there is no problem with the current accepted theory and that the apparent paradox is not the result of a deficiency in the current theory but is rather caused by its misapplication in practice. In particular, the authors show that the systematic risk of cash flows is frequently mis-estimated, and the correction of this error solves the apparent paradox.

Over the past 20 years, PPP activity around the globe amounts to many billions of dollars. Decisions on major infrastructure funding are of enormous social and economic importance.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to demonstrate the flaws and internal inconsistencies with proposed valuation framework alternatives for the purposes of evaluating PPPs.

Since the 1990s, the National Health Service (NHS)advisory officers have developed considerable expertise in managing the process of specifying, procuring, contracting and running public–private partnership (PPP) projects. However, there has been a relatively consistent trajectory in the findings of studies and evaluation of PPP from its initial introduction in the health sector in 1992 to the present time. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to critically evaluate the PPP experience in the UK context using a case study in the NHS.

The partnership literature is primarily focussed on process issues, and the impact of partnerships on improving outcomes cannot be assumed. By conducting a critical review on most updated research studies and innovative approaches in this area, the literature as to the place of PPPs in health in the context of the UK is critically explored and whether they have a role in system resilience is examined. A case study has be used as well to describing the processes of a PPP arrangement.

Health-care PPP is one of the options relating to health system resilience. However, their contribution in the NHS has been mixed, with success noted in short-term clinical and services contracts while in the long-term the value for money argument has not been proven. In theory, the role of PPPs in bringing together ingredients supporting system resilience such as finance, management and innovation in the UK has not always been successful, and NHS providers have taken the approach to exit such arrangements.

More research work is needed to capture the 21st-century challenges and critical success factors during its implementation.

The creation of strong partnerships is moving service delivery away from a project-by-project approach to one that includes strategic and policy developments for long-term results.

This is a fresh discussion in the role of PPP in system resilience in the UK perspective through a case study describing an exit from a PPP arrangement.

The purposes of this paper is twofold: first, to assess the risks associated with the international construction joint ventures (ICJVs) between Singapore and developing countries and second, to investigate the risk allocation preferences in these ICJVs.

A questionnaire survey was conducted and responses were received from 38 firms that had participated in ICJVs with developing countries. A risk criticality (RC) index was adopted to evaluate the criticality of each risk.

The survey results reported “political instability” as the most critical risk and market-level risks were less critical than country and project-level risks. Additionally, the results showed agreement on the risk ranking between building and infrastructure ICJVs, despite significant differences in the criticalities of five risks. Furthermore, five risks were preferably allocated to host and foreign partners, respectively, while 13 risks could be shared among partners.

First, due to the sample size, one should be cautious when interpreting and generalizing the results. Second, the RC index proposed in this study was subjective as it was influenced by the individual experience and risk attitude of the respondents. Also, the RC values were calculated without considering the weights of the respondents. Lastly, the questionnaire survey, which has been widely used in identifying risk allocation preferences, may not identify the insights of practitioners into the risk allocation practices.

This study provides a clear understanding of the risks associated with forming ICJVs with developing countries and the preferred risk allocation. Although, this study is focused on the risks faced by the Singapore-developing country ICJVs, the identification of the potential risks allows companies from other countries to customize their risk profile and assess the risks before they form ICJVs with developing countries.

As few studies have explored the risk allocation preferences in ICJVs, this study expands the literature and provides practitioners with important information for preparing joint venture contracts or agreements. Thus, this study can contribute to the literature relating to ICJVs.