Using public-private partnerships for the building and management of school assets and services

Abstract

Purpose

The provision of school assets and associated services is essential for achieving a country's educational outcomes. Building and managing schools usually features large component of operation, multiple groups of stakeholders, relatively simple design and technical requirements and tight timeframes to be completed to meet the open date. Internationally, public-private partnerships (PPPs) were introduced as innovative delivery models to bring forward school projects. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the PPP experiences in the school sector focusing on the critical dimensions impacting on the viability of using PPPs for school development.

Design/methodology/approach

Comparative case studies of two school PPP projects based in Australia and New Zealand were adopted as the main research method. Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders were used as primary data collection method.

Findings

By examining the procedural and organisational arrangements from a comparative perspective, the research finds that, for a successful school PPP, the followings are critical: sound business case development; size-adjusted and streamlined tendering process; localised private sector partner and streamlined finance; extensive stakeholder engagement; and effective governance and organisational structure and enhanced partnership.

Originality/value

The findings provide practical implications for policy makers and public procuring authorities initiating school projects and private entities seeking investment opportunities. By implementing the strategies derived from this research and adjusting to their own social and economic environment, governments and industry would be at a better position to develop and manage schools using PPPs.

Citation

Liu, T. and Wilkinson, S. (2014), "Using public-private partnerships for the building and management of school assets and services", Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 206-223. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-10-2012-0102