Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
ABSTRACT
To fulfil the increasing demands of the public,
Public Private Partnership (PPP) has been
increasingly used to procure infrastructure
projects, such as motor ways, bridges, tunnels
and railways. However, the risks involved in
PPP projects are unique and dynamic due to
large amount of investment and long
concession period. This paper aims to develop
a risk identification framework from the
perspectives of project life cycle, and an
assessment framework for risks associated
with PPP project using fuzzy analytical
hierarchy process (AHP). First the paper
reviews the current literature to identify
common risks in PPP infrastructure projects
and classification methods used. The risks
identified from the literature were classified
using project life cycle perspectives. Following
that, the paper presents the advantages of
fuzzy AHP. Furthermore, the paper provides a
framework for assessment of risks in PPP
projects followed by an illustrative example
where the data was obtained from survey
questionnaires. The paper concludes that risks
associated in PPP infrastructure projects are
unique and therefore it is beneficial to classify
them from project life cycle perspectives, and
the proposed fuzzy AHP method is suitable for
the assessment of these risks.
Keywords: PPP infrastructure project, risk
identification,
risk
assessment,
fuzzy,
analytical hierarchy process
INTRODUCTION AND RESEARCH AIMS
A PPP can be defined as a long term
relationship between the public and private
sectors that has the purpose of producing
public services or infrastructure (Cartlidge,
2006). The partnerships between the
government and private sectors have been
seen as useful to overcome the resource
deficit experienced by governments coping
with increased mandates as the result of
Feasibility study
Financing
Singh et al,
2006,India
Li et al 2005,
UK
Lemos, et al,
2004, Portugal
Grimsey, et al,
2002, UK
WANG, et al,
2000, China
Akintoye, et al,
1998, UK
Total
Environmental pollution
Public opposition
Pre-investment risk
Risk factors
Political opposition/hostility
3
2
Legislation change
Design deficiency
Design
Delay completion
Risk category
Singh et al,
2006,India
Li et al 2005,
UK
Lemos, et al,
2004, Portugal
Grimsey, et al,
2002, UK
WANG, et al,
2000, China
Akintoye, et al,
1998, UK
Total
Environmental pollution
public opposition
Risk factors
Insolvency / default
or suppliers
of subcontractor
Bad weather
Operation
Environmental pollution
Legislation change
Risk category
Singh et al,
2006,India
Li et al 2005,
UK
Lemos, et al,
2004, Portugal
Grimsey, et al,
2002, UK
WANG, et al,
2000, China
Akintoye, et al,
1998, UK
Total
Technology risk
Operators inability
Risk factors
Debt risk
3
2
Level 1
Objective
Criterion 1
Level 2
Criterion 2
Alternative 1
Level 3
Criterion n
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Level 1
objective
Level 2
risk
group
PPPRisksAssessmentandRanking(R1)
Riskrankingin Riskrankingin
Feasibility
Financing
study(R21)
(R2-5)
(R2-6)
Fuzzy scale
1
1% ~ 3%
(1,1,3) ~(1,3,5)
3% ~ 5%
(1,3,5)~(3,5,7)
5% ~ 7%
(3,5,7)~(5,7,9)
Intensity of importance
Two activities contribute equally to the objective
Experience and judgment slightly favour one activity
over another
Experience and judgment strongly favour one activity
over another
An activity is favoured very strongly over another; its
dominance demonstrated in practice
Risks (R3-5x)
Risks (R3-51)
Riskrankingin
Transfer
Risks (R3-5x)
Riskranking
inOperation
Risks (R3-51)
Risks (R3-4x)
Risks (R3-41)
Riskrankingin
Construction
(R2-4)
Risks (R3-3x)
Risks (R3-31)
Risks (R3-2x)
Risks (R3-21)
Risks (R3-1x)
Risks (R3-11)
Level 3
risk
factor
Riskrankingin
Design
a3
), the up
a3
, centring
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
(1)
i j
by
where
~
i=j,
aij=1;
where
aij= 1 ~ 7 & 1 7 ~ 1
a
w=
n
i =1 ij
~
j =1
i =1 ij
(2)
~
1 , 1 )
A 1 = ( 1 ,
a3 a2 a 1
(3)
A B = ( a1 + b1 , a2 + b2 , a3 + b3 ) (4)
~
(5)
A
~
=(
a1 a 2 a 3
, , )
b3 b 2 b1
(6)
CI =
max n
(7)
n 1
CI
CR =
RI
(8)
Defuzzification
of
the
fuzzy
w1 = w1 + ( w2 w1 )
w3 = w3 ( w3 w2 )
(9)
w = w3 + (1 ) w1
(10)
AN
ILLUSTRATIVE
EXAMPLE
APPLICATION
OF
THE
PROPOSED
METHOD/FRAMEWORK
To demonstrate the application of the
proposed assessment framework, survey
questionnaires were used to collect data. To
allow more objective responses from the
respondents, a hypothetical example as
described in the following section is attached
to the survey questionnaires. The respondents
are required to reflect to this example while
completing the survey questionnaires.
[The hypothetical example] A new express
highway is to be built between X City and Y
City to increase the traffic efficiency. The
highway will be delivered using a PPP scheme
in the form of Build / Operate / Transfer (BOT).
The main technical features are: proposed
length 80km, 6 traffic lanes; design speed
120km/h (on the plane); 15 major bridges, total
length
11km;
4
interchanged
grade
intersections ; 6 non-interchanged grade
10
11
RI
0.58
0.90
1.12
1.24
1.32
1.41
1.45
1.48
1.49
Work experience(years)
Position
>20
10~20
<10
Engineers
Project
Managers
Departmental
Managers
16
Stage
Risk factor
Feasibility study
Financing
Design
Construction
Planning deficiency
17
17
13
18
17
17
16
13
12
20
18
Design deficiency
13
21
Completion delay
19
18
17
17
Safety risk
16
16
11
13
interest rate volatility
11
Inflation rate volatility
11
Little residual value
21
Transmission failure
12
Transfer
Legislation change
21
Operation / maintenance cost overrun
20
Fluctuating market demand
19
Environment pollution
18
Operator inability
15
public opposition because of high product/service price
14
Operation
RiskrankingoftheBOTexpresswayproject
riskrankingin
FinancingStage
Study Stage
(R22)
Transmissionfailure(R362)
Littleresidualvalue (R361)
Operationsafetyproblems (R357)
Publicoppositionbecauseofhighproduct/serviceprice (R356)
Operatorinability (R355)
Environmentpollution (R354)
Fluctuatingmarketdemand(R353)
Constructionforcemajeureevents (R348)
Safety risk (R346)
Toomanylatedesignvariation (R343)
Completiondelay (R342)
Capitalmaterializedproblem (R341)
Designvariation(R333)
Designdeficiency(R332)
Lackdesignflexibility (R331)
Littlefinancialattractionofprojecttoinvestors(R325)
Illcapitalstructure (R326)
Inflationratevolatility (R324)
Poorfinancialmarket (R323)
FinancialLegislationchange (R322)
Interestratevolatility (R321)
Permit/approvalrisk (R314)
Poorpublicdecisionmakingprocess(R313)
Planningdeficiency (R312)
Landacquisitionandcompensation problems(R311)
Feasibility
Project stages
Feasibility
Financing
Stage
Design
Stage
Construction
Stage
Operation
Stage
Transfer
Stage
(R2-1)
(R2-2)
(R2-3)
(R2-4)
(R2-5)
(R2-6)
Stage (R2-1)
Financing
(R2-2)
Stage
Stage
(R2-3)
Construction
(R2-4)
Stage
Operation
(R2-5)
Stage
Transfer Stage
(R2-6)
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
Design Stage
1 5
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1 3
1
~
3
~
1 3
Risk factors
Weighting
No.
Risk factors
Weighting
0.3199
16
0.0715
0.2257
17
0.0671
0.2136
18
0.0645
0.2053
19
0.0607
0.1534
20
0.0565
Financial
(R3-22)
0.1494
21
0.053
Legislation
change
0.1432
22
0.0503
0.1305
23
0.049
Fluctuating
(R3-53)
0.1264
24
Operation / maintenance
overrun (R3-52)
cost
0.0463
10
0.107
25
0.0424
11
0.105
26
Poor
public
process (R3-13)
0.0422
12
0.0931
27
0.0419
13
0.09
28
0.0378
14
Construction force
events (R3-48)
0.0887
29
0.0361
15
0.0715
30
0.0196
market
demand
majeure
decision-making
CONCLUSIONS
As a procurement method for large scale
infrastructure projects, PPP has been used in
many countries. To achieve a successful PPP
project, the lifecycle risks are identified based
on the literature review and classified
according to project stages. The advantages of
fuzzy AHP in terms of its objective
measurement
make
it
suitable
for
systematically assess the risks in PPP
infrastructures projects. The conceptual model
of fuzzy AHP proposed in this paper was
verified by an illustrative example to be
effective and efficient for assessment of risks
in PPP infrastructure projects. It is concluded
that using lifecycle perspective to identify,
classify and rank the risks associated in PPP
infrastructure project is feasible and using
fuzzy AHP to assess the risks are effective
and objective.
REFERENCES
Wang, J.Y.,
Construction
Stakeholder
of PRRES