Availability Payments and Key Performance Indicators: Challenges for Effective Implementation o Performance Management Systems in Transportation Public-Private Partnerships

被引:19
|
作者
Lawther, Wendell C. [1 ]
Martin, Lawrence [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cent Florida, Sch Publ Adm, 218L HPA 2, Orlando, FL 32816 USA
[2] Univ Cent Florida, Publ Affairs Program, Orlando, FL 32816 USA
[3] Univ Cent Florida, Publ Affairs, Orlando, FL 32816 USA
关键词
Public-private partnerships; availability payments; demand risk; performance management systems; key performance indicators;
D O I
10.1177/1087724X14528476
中图分类号
C93 [管理学]; D035 [国家行政管理]; D523 [行政管理]; D63 [国家行政管理];
学科分类号
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ; 1204 ; 120401 ;
摘要
Recent economic problems have led to a potential increase in the adoption of an availability payments approach by U.S. transportation agencies when creating public-private partnerships (P3s). In doing so, the public sector assumes 100% of the demand risk, relying much more heavily on performance management systems that contain key performance indicators (KPIs) to ensure optimal private partner performance during operations and maintenance. Many existing performance management systems, however, suffer from a lack of alignment among KPIs chosen to ensure that all P3s meet societal or agency goals as well as project goals. Furthermore, the choice of KPIs and accompanying standards has resulted in standards that are too easily met or inappropriately weighed. Examples are provided from P3 contracts for projects in Australia and Canada.
引用
收藏
页码:219 / 234
页数:16
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] The Performance of Public-Private Partnerships: An Evaluation of 15 Years DBFM in Dutch Infrastructure Governance
    Koppenjan, Joop
    Klijn, Erik-Hans
    Verweij, Stefan
    Duijn, Mike
    van Meerkerk, Ingmar
    Metselaar, Samantha
    Warsen, Rianne
    PUBLIC PERFORMANCE & MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2022, 45 (05) : 998 - 1028
  • [42] Public-Private Partnerships in Urban Regeneration: Democratic Legitimacy and its Relation with Performance and Trust
    Kort, Michiel
    Klijn, Erik-Hans
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT STUDIES, 2013, 39 (01) : 89 - 106
  • [43] MEASURING THE PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS A Systematic Method for Distinguishing Outputs from Outcomes
    Koontz, Tomas M.
    Thomas, Craig W.
    PUBLIC PERFORMANCE & MANAGEMENT REVIEW, 2012, 35 (04) : 769 - 786
  • [44] Can public-private partnerships (PPPs) improve the environmental performance of urban sewage treatment?
    Tang, Yaru
    Liu, Mengdi
    Zhang, Bing
    JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT, 2021, 291
  • [45] Diagnosing Transportation Developing Key Performance Indicators to Assess Urban Transportation Systems
    Shah, Yousaf
    Manaugh, Kevin
    Badami, Madhav
    El-Geneidy, Ahmed
    TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH RECORD, 2013, (2357) : 1 - 12
  • [46] The Implementation of Key Performance Indicators in the Malaysian Private Finance Initiative Projects
    Lop, Nor Suzila
    Ismail, Kharizam
    Isa, Haryati Mohd
    ENVIRONMENT-BEHAVIOUR PROCEEDINGS JOURNAL, 2017, 2 (05): : 95 - 104
  • [47] Implementation of performance measurement systems: private and public sectors
    Bititci, U
    Cavalieri, S
    von Cieminski, G
    PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL, 2005, 16 (02) : 99 - 100
  • [48] Public monitoring of environmental management plan implementation in road construction projects: key performance indicators
    Dahalan, Nurol Huda
    Rahman, Rahimi A.
    Ahmad, Saffuan Wan
    Ibrahim, Che Khairil Izam Che
    JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING DESIGN AND TECHNOLOGY, 2023,
  • [49] Performance management systems in Lebanese private higher education institutions: design and implementation challenges
    Al Jardali, Hussein
    Khaddage-Soboh, Nada
    Abbas, Mohammad
    Al Mawed, Nour
    HIGHER EDUCATION SKILLS AND WORK-BASED LEARNING, 2021, 11 (02) : 297 - 316
  • [50] LIFECYCLE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT OF PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS: A CASE STUDY IN CHINA'S WATER SECTOR
    Bao, Fengyu
    Martek, Igor
    Chen, Chuan
    Chan, Albert P. C.
    Yu, Yao
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF STRATEGIC PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, 2018, 22 (06) : 516 - 531