The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

www.emeraldinsight.com/1026-4116.htm

Performance
Performance indicators for indicators for
public private partnership (PPP) PPP projects

projects in Malaysia
Rosnani Mohamad 137
International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Received 10 April 2017
Suhaiza Ismail Revised 19 January 2018
Accepted 19 March 2018
Department of Accounting, International Islamic University Malaysia,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and
Julia Mohd Said
Accounting, International Islamic University Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to identify the important performance indicators used
in assessing public private partnership (PPP) performance in terms of the two aspects of PPP which are
“financing and markets” and “innovation and learnings”; and second, to investigate the differences in
the perception between public and private sectors on the importance of performance indicators in terms of the
two aspects of PPP.
Design/methodology/approach – Using a questionnaire survey, 237 completed questionnaires were
received representing 51.52 per cent response rate. In examining the importance of performance indicators,
the descriptive statistical tests of mean, standard deviation and mean score ranking were used.
The independent t-tests were conducted to investigate the differences in the perceptions between the two
respondents’ groups on the importance of performance indicators.
Findings – In relation to the two areas of indicators used in assessing PPP performance, the findings show
that the top three important performance indicators for financing and markets are: “Operational cost”,
“Construction cost” and “Construction period”. While the top three important performance indicators for
innovation and learning are: “Technology innovation”, “Employee training” and “Financial innovation”.
In terms of the differences in the perceptions between the public and private sector groups, the test results
indicate that there is only one significant statistical difference for each aspect of performance indicators.
Originality/value – This study offers empirical evidence on key financial performance indicators for
PPP projects as perceived by two key parties in a PPP contract that are public and private sectors.
Keywords Malaysia, Performance indicators, Public private partnership
Paper type Research paper

1. Introduction
The public private partnership (PPP) has been used worldwide as a mechanism for the
public sector to procure public facilities and services. Since the introduction of PPP under
the term private finance initiative (PFI) by the Conservative Government in the UK in 1992,
the scheme has been adopted by many other countries including France, China, India,
Singapore, Thailand and also Malaysia. However, the characteristics and structure of the
PPP are unique to each individual adopting country (Ismail, 2014). More importantly,
different countries have different justifications and objectives for adopting the PPP scheme
(Winch et al., 2012).
In Malaysia, the official introduction of the PPP under the Ninth Malaysia Plan in 2006
had the main objective of encouraging the greater involvement of the private sector in
Journal of Economic and
providing infrastructure facilities and public services by streamlining the existing Administrative Sciences
Privatisation Policy (Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006; PPP Guidelines, 2009). Although the Vol. 34 No. 2, 2018
pp. 137-152
Privatisation Policy, which was first introduced in 1983, was reported to be successful and © Emerald Publishing Limited
1026-4116
received a positive response from stakeholders, contentious issues regarding the DOI 10.1108/JEAS-04-2017-0018
JEAS implementation of the Privatisation Policy led to the unveiling of the PPP initiative in 2006
34,2 (Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006; Tenth Malaysia Plan, 2011; Ismail, 2012). As the PPP initiative
is a continuation of the Privatisation Policy, the ultimate justifications for adopting it are
similar to the objectives of privatisation, to improve the performance of the public sector in
delivering public facilities and services through the participation of the private sector and to
reduce government expenditure on providing public services (Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006;
138 Takim et al., 2009).
However, after several years of PPP implementation in Malaysia, several weaknesses in the
implementation of government projects were highlighted in the 2012 Auditor General’s Report,
(National Audit Department, 2012). In particular, one of the issues raised was the lack of
planning, monitoring and performance evaluation of PPP projects which resulted in negative
impacts on projects, such as project delay, low quality output and inefficient use of resources.
The report states:
[…] the weaknesses observed include improper payments, works/supplies did not adhere
the specifications or of inferior quality, unreasonable delays, wastages and weaknesses in the
management of revenue and assets. These weaknesses were caused by negligence in complying
with Government regulations and procedures; lack of meticulous planning on projects/activities
and in determining the scope and specification of tenders; lack of close and effective monitoring on
works of contractors/consultants/suppliers; lack of […].
(National Audit Department, 2012, p. 10)

Another related issue addressed in the Auditor General’s Report (2012) in relation to PPP
procurement and implementation was the lack of enforcement of performance-based
payment in repaying the private sector consortium upon completion of the construction of
PPP projects. In sum, the issues addressed in the Auditor General’s Report (2012) pertaining
to PPP project implementation concern a lack of proper planning and insufficient
performance monitoring.
Even though there is a PPP Guidelines issued by the Public Private Partnership Unit or
Unit Kerjasama Awam Swasta (UKAS), the guideline only provides a general mechanism to
evaluate PPP projects to ensure the achievement of value for money (VFM). This is a critical
issue as emphasised by Jones (2013), who states that an appropriate mechanism is needed to
monitor the performance of the project as inadequate monitoring and evaluation may result
in negative consequences to a project.
Key performance indicators (KPIs) constitute one of the commonly used mechanisms to
measure achievement or performance (Yuan et al., 2009). Applying management processes
in the context of the PPP, when the objectives for PPP implementation have been
formulated, it is essential to monitor the extent to which the objectives are achieved by using
relevant indicators (McWatters et al., 2008). Moreover, the private sector providers and the
government are the two key players in a PPP arrangement. Therefore, to ensure the
successful implementation of a PPP project, it is crucial to explore the differences in
the performance indicators used to evaluate the PPP achievement between the private sector
and the public sector. In essence, this paper aims to achieve two objectives. First objective is
to identify the importance of performance indicators for two aspects of PPP implementation,
which are financing and markets, and innovation and learnings. Second objective is to
investigate the differences in the perception of the public and private sectors of the
importance of the performance indicators in terms of the two aspects.
This study is significant as it is expected to contribute in a number of ways. First, it
contributes to the existing literature on performance measurement particularly in the
context of the PPP in a developing country, namely, Malaysia. Second, the findings of
the study can provide inputs to assist the relevant government authorities such as UKAS
with respect to improving the existing PPP guidelines, which could help to ensure the
achievement of PPP objectives through the effective monitoring of relevant performance Performance
indicators. Third, identifying the performance indicators that are perceived by the public indicators for
and the private sectors as important will assist in preparing both of these key stakeholders PPP projects
to have a better and common understanding concerning the PPP project performance
indicators used to assess PPP project performance, which should lead to better decision
making. The remainder part of the paper is structured as follows: review of previous
literatures is provided in Section 2, followed by the research methodology employed in 139
Section 3. Section 4 describes the findings and discussion and the paper is concluded
in Section 5 with implications, limitations and suggestions for future research.

2. Literature review
Prior studies on performance of PPP have focused on the various performance measurement
mechanisms used in evaluating PPP projects (see Colman, 2000; Froud and Shaoul, 2001;
English, 2007; Pollock et al., 2007; Coulson, 2008; Garvin and Bosso, 2008; Morallos and
Amekudzi, 2008; Marty et al., 2005). Froud and Shaoul (2001) carried out a study on the
appraisal procedures used for evaluating VFM and the affordability of a PPP option.
The study found trivial problems with the appraisal mechanism used at that time. Likewise,
Colman (2000) and Coulson (2008) closely examined the UK treasury guidelines for assessing
the VFM of PFI proposals and projects. Coulson (2008) commented on the quantitative
elements of the public sector comparator (PSC) including risk transfer, transaction costs,
imputed lifecycle and discounted cash flows and he concluded that in reality PPP may not
always give better VFM. Adding on to the similar area of works, Morallos and Amekudzi
(2008) rigorously evaluated the VFM assessment adopted by various countries including the
UK, Australia and Canada and based on the information gathered from the evaluation, the
authors offered guidelines for future use of the VFM mechanism.
Furthermore, in improving the performance evaluation of PPP projects, Garvin and
Bosso (2008) proposed a framework to assess the effectiveness of PPP projects taking into
account various factors including the interests of society, the state, industry and the market.
Moreover, PPP performance audit mechanism and procedures, particularly in Australia,
were examined by English (2007). Concerning the VFM of PPP projects, there is no one
study which found conclusive evidence that PPP has offered better VFM. For instance,
Ball et al. (2007) analysed VFM based on evidence reported in the government official
reports and concluded that there is no evidence of VFM from PPP projects. Similarly,
perception studies by Ismail and Pendlebury (2006) and Demirag and Khadaroo (2008)
on the VFM of operating PPP schools in the UK claimed to have found inconclusive
evidence pertaining to VFM achievement. Hurst and Reeves (2004) even failed to produce
any evidence on VFM due to insufficient information on PPP.
In further improving the mechanism to measure the performance of PPP projects, KPIs
have been identified by several researchers to be useful. Yuan et al. (2008) investigated the
characteristics of PPPs and identified the KPIs for assessing project performance. The KPIs
are identified by using an established conceptual model for the performance indicator
system and the identification of the KPIs of PPP projects. The identified KPIs are
categorised into five components: (1) physical characteristics of projects, (2) financing and
marketing indicators, (3) innovation and learning indicators, (4) stakeholder indicators,
and (5) process indicators.
In a related study, Yuan et al. (2009) conducted research on the selection of KPIs for PPP
projects to develop a KPI framework for assessing the performance of PPP projects.
The developed framework is based on a conceptual model and hypothesised relationship that
consists of five components: (1) physical characteristics of projects, (2) the requirements of
stakeholders regarding finance and markets, (3) the requirements of stakeholders regarding
innovation and learnings, (4) stakeholders, and (5) project process. The first component, which
JEAS consists of 15 KPIs, is considered as the input of the projects and influences the performance
34,2 of the projects in the initialisation or planning stage. The second, third and fourth components
consist of nine, six and four KPIs, respectively, and are grouped into one package, namely, the
requirements of stakeholders, which reflects the specific requirements of stakeholders in
terms of economy, innovation, culture and the benefit to stakeholders. The last component
consists of 14 KPIs that may affect the process of the PPP project.
140 To explore the perception of PPP stakeholders, Yuan et al. (2012) conducted a structured
questionnaire survey based on the framework developed in Yuan et al. (2009). The results
show that all the 48 performance indicators are perceived as important by the respondents.
For the first component, the respondents perceive “commitment and responsibility
between public and private sector” as the most important indicator, while “appropriate risk
allocation, risk sharing and risk transfer”, “concessionaire’s knowledge of PPPs”,
“government’s knowledge of PPPs” and “project technical feasibility, constructability and
maintainability” are ranked second, third, fourth and fifth, respectively. The “type of
construction” indicator is ranked last by the respondents.
As for the second component, the finance and markets indicator, the top five most
important indicators as perceived by all the respondents are “sound financial analysis”,
“sustainable profitability”, “construction and concession period”, “financial ability of whole
shareholders” and “perfect tariff/tolls or price adjustment mechanism for the project”,
while “insurance coverage” is ranked as the least important. For the third component,
all respondents rank “financial innovation”, “technology innovation” and “employee
training” as the top three most important indicators and “establishment of learning
organisation” as the least important indicator.
Based on the survey, the most important indicators for the stakeholders component are
“general public/social satisfaction”, “good relationships within project team”, “public client’s
satisfaction” and lastly, “good relationship among the concessionaire, subcontractors and
suppliers”. For the last component, project process, all respondents perceive the most
important indicator to be “good governance”. The other important indicators for project
process are “high-quality control”, “cost management”, “time management” and “safety
management”, while “contract management” is ranked as the least important indicator by the
respondents. A confirmatory factor analysis was used to consolidate the 48 indicators and it
identified only 41 performance indicators that could be used as performance indicators for
PPP projects. The results of the analysis indicate that the performance of a PPP project is
strongly influenced by reasonable procurement, design and planning in the public sector,
effective process control in the private sector, and the ultimate satisfaction of both sectors.
A most recent study by Mohamad et al. sought the perception of the government and
private sector companies involved in PPP on the importance of performance objectives of
PPP projects in Malaysia. The study discovered that the five most important performance
objectives for PPP implementation in Malaysia based on all respondents’ perceptions are
“High-quality public service”, “Provide convenient service for society”, “Within or under
budget”, “On-time or earlier” and “Satisfy the need for more public facilities”.
The review of literatures reveals that there is scant research on identifying the
perception of stakeholders of the performance indicators for PPP in the context of Malaysia
as the focus of the study by Mohamad et al. is on performance objective of PPP in general
and not specifically on performance indicators. Moreover, as PPP characteristics and
performance is unique to individual country, thus, the aim of this study is to fill this gap in
the literature by evaluating the important KPI for PPP implementation in Malaysia.

3. Research method
To achieve the objectives of the current study, a questionnaire survey method is used to
gather the perceptions of the public and private sectors concerning the performance
indicators for PPP projects in Malaysia. Particularly, the study adopted with permission the Performance
questionnaire developed by Yuan et al. (2010). The Part A of the questionnaire seeks indicators for
information on the background of the respondents while the Part B consists of performance PPP projects
indicators of PPP projects. However, several modifications were made to the original
instrument to better suit the context of the PPP in Malaysia. The modifications were made to
the demographic part and the list of KPIs (Part B). In the demographic part (Part A),
a modification was made to clearly represent the nature of both sectors – public and private, 141
and the respondents’ experience of PPP in Malaysia.
In Part B, one indicator for financing and market, “construction and concession period”
was split into two items, “construction period” and “concession period” since the respondents
in the pilot study stated that this item represented two different indicators. This resulted in
Part B having 12 indicators in the final questionnaire instead of 11 indicators in the original
questionnaire. Part B is divided into two sub-components that seek to obtain information on
the perception of respondents about performance indicators for PPP projects with respect to:
financing and markets, and innovation and learnings. Respondents are given five levels of
importance to choose from based on the following scale intervals: 1: unimportant; 2: of little
importance; 3: moderately important; 4: important; and 5: extremely important. In addition,
respondents are given an opportunity to make any suggestions and comments about other
performance indicators that may be missing from the questionnaire that respondent perceives
as important for the performance and success of PPP projects.
The finalised set of questionnaires were distributed to the respondents via postal mail.
The target respondents for the current study are officers of government departments and
private sector companies who may have been involved in PPP projects or who are familiar
with the PPP scheme. Based on the information obtained from the UKAS, the monitoring
body for PPP projects in Malaysia, 21 out of 24 ministries in Malaysia have implemented
projects using the PPP scheme. A total of ten questionnaires were sent to each of
the 21 ministries. In addition, ten questionnaires were also sent to each of the 14 state
governments, specifically to the Economic Planning Unit of each state. As for the private
sector companies, five questionnaires were sent to each one of 22 public listed construction
companies that had indicated their interest in participating in the study. The data collection,
which is inclusive of follow-ups with the representatives, took about two months. Table I
provides a summary of the number of questionnaires distributed and the number of
completed questionnaires received.

Data analysis
The data are analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)
Software Version 17. For this study, the central tendency (mean) score and standard
deviation for each objective and performance indicator were computed for the five-point
Likert scales. Then, based on the mean scores, the factors were ranked according to their
importance as perceived by all the respondents, as well as separately by the public sector
respondents and private sector respondents. Furthermore, an independent samples t-test

No. of questionnaires No. of questionnaires Usable questionnaires

No. of respondents distributed returned (%) (%)

Public sector
Federal government 210 152 (72%) 152 (72%) Table I.
State government 140 36 (26%) 20 (14%) Questionnaire
Private sector 110 65 (45%) 65 (59%) distribution and
Total 460 253 (55%) 237 (52%) response rate
JEAS was conducted with regards to the differences in the perceptions of the public and
34,2 private sectors regarding the importance of each performance indicator at the 10 per cent
significance value (Table II).

4. Findings and discussion

Response rate and demographic profile of the respondents
142 The respondents of this study are from the public and private sectors, which are the two main
parties in PPP projects. Out of 460 questionnaires distributed, 253 were returned, which
represents a 55 per cent return rate. Of the total responses, 237 responses (51.52 per cent) were
usable while 16 responses were excluded as they were incomplete. Table III provides
information on the response rate which shows that a total of 172 responses were received from
the public sector and 65 were received from the private sector. Out of 172 public sector
responses, 152 responses were received from the federal level and 20 responses were from the
state governments. Of the responses from the private sector, contractor respondents and
facilities management respondents had the highest response rate, with 23 and 21 responses,
respectively. These sectors represent almost half of the responses from the private sector.
Table IV presents the demographic information of the respondents in terms of
work experience, involvement year and number of project involved. The table also
shows respondents’ familiarity or not with the PPP scheme. Although the majority of the
respondents (78.7 per cent) have less than five years’ work experience, 67.2 per cent
of the respondents declared that they are familiar with the PPP scheme with over
50 per cent of the respondents claimed to have been involved in at least one PPP project.
Therefore, to some extent, the respondents are credible in terms of being able to provide
their perception of the subject of the current study.

Performance indicators for PPP

The following sub-sections present the findings on the important performance indicators
and the differences in the perceptions of the public and private sectors on the importance
the indicators for each of the two aspects of PPP performance that are “finance and market”
and “innovation and learning”.

Research objective No. of items Cronbach’s α value

Table II. Performance indicators (PIs) 18 0.981

Reliability test using 1. PIs – finance and markets 12 0.967
Cronbach’s α test 2. PIs – innovation and learnings 6 0.955

Total
Sector Role of respondents Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage

Public sector Federal 152 64.1 172 72.6

State 20 4.2
Private sector Contractor 23 9.7 65 27.4
Facilities management 22 9.7
Operator 6 2.5
Consultant 6 2.5
Table III. Financier 2 0.8
Distribution of Others 6 2.5
respondents Total 237 100 237 100
Respondents’ characteristics Frequency Percentage
Performance
indicators for
Years of experiencea PPP projects
Less than 5 166 78.7
6-10 23 10.9
11-15 14 6.6
16-20 5 2.4
21+ 3 1.4 143
b
Number of PPP projects
None 94 45.2
1-5 93 44.7
6-10 6 2.9
11-15 6 2.9
More than 15 9 4.3
Familiarityc Table IV.
Yes 127 67.2 Demographic
No 62 32.8 information of
Note: an ¼ 211, missing ¼ 26; bn ¼ 208, missing ¼ 29; cn ¼ 189, missing ¼ 48 respondents

Performance indicators for finance and markets

Overall perception on the importance of the performance indicators. Table V shows the mean
scores and the mean score ranking for the relative importance of 12 financing and market
performance indicators as perceived by all respondents as well as separately by the public
and private sector groups of respondents. The mean scores for the overall results range
from 3.43 to 4.24, which indicates that, on average, the respondents are of the opinion that
all the performance indicators are important. The top five performance indicators in terms
of financing and markets as perceived by all respondents were “Operational cost”,
“Construction cost”, “Construction period”, “Financial ability of contractor and investors”
and “Concession period”. The least important indicator perceived by all respondents was
“Increased marketability”.
“Operational cost” was ranked first as an important performance indicator for the
financing and markets component of PPP by all respondents. The result was expected
because, besides the construction cost, the “operational cost” represents a huge portion of

Overall Public sector Private sector

No. Performance Indicator Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank

1. Operational cost 4.36 0.981 1 4.63 0.947 1 4.00 1.039 1

2. Construction cost 4.22 0.994 2 4.34 0.955 2 3.91 1.035 4
3. Construction period 4.18 1.001 3 4.29 0.975 3 3.88 1.016 6
4. Financial ability of contractor
and investors 4.14 0.947 4 4.21 0.917 5 3.94 1.006 3
5. Concession period 4.13 1.002 5 4.23 0.973 4 3.86 1.037 8
Table V.
6. Sound financial analysis and operation 4.10 0.950 6 4.18 0.934 6 3.86 0.957 7 Perception of survey
7. Realistic schedule of investment, revenue 4.02 0.985 7 4.06 0.969 8 3.89 1.025 5 respondents
8. Insurance coverage 4.01 0.996 8 4.09 0.993 7 3.80 0.979 9 concerning the
9. Sustainable profitability 4.00 0.948 9 4.02 0.946 9 3.95 0.957 2 relative importance
10. Perfect tariff/tolls or price adjustment of performance
mechanism for the project 3.83 0.914 10 4.01 0.900 10 3.71 0.930 10 indicators in relation
11. Low financing cost 3.76 1.00 11 3.85 1.01 11 3.55 0.979 11 to financing
12. Increased marketability 3.43 0.989 12 3.60 0.974 12 3.32 1.027 12 and markets
JEAS the overall PPP cost. This is because out of the total PPP contractual period of 25-30 years,
34,2 only the first 2-3 years are for construction, while the remaining 22-27 years are
for operation. Throughout the operating period, the private sector is responsible for
maintaining and operating the PPP facility or asset. On the other hand, the government is
responsible for making regular payments to the private sector consortium for the facilities
and services provided throughout the operation period (PPP Guidelines, 2009; Ismail, 2009;
144 Takim et al., 2009). The second most important performance indicator as perceived by all
respondents in relation to PPP financing and markets was “Construction cost”. This is
because most PPP projects are large projects that involve a high construction cost.
Therefore, the construction cost component is equally as important as the operation cost for
a PPP project. The importance of this performance indicator is consistent with Ismail (2009),
who found that the construction cost was the most preferred sub-component of the
Economic sub-category.
“Construction period” was perceived by all respondents as the third most important
performance indicator. This is an important performance indicator for the PPP financing
and markets component because repayment to the private sector consortium is only made
upon completion of the construction of the PPP assets or facilities (Takim et al., 2008., 2009;
PPP Guidelines, 2009; Ismail, 2012). Moreover, a delay in the completion of the construction
also leads to a severe penalty for the private sector consortium. This finding is consistent
with Ismail (2009), who found that construction time is a preferred and well-accepted
performance indicator among respondents because a delay or overrun in the construction
period may result in an increase in costs.
The fourth ranked performance indicator for PPP financing and markets as perceived by
all respondents was “Financial ability of contractor and investors”. The financial credibility
of the contractor is important because PPP projects are huge projects with a large amount of
capital value. In fact, in a PPP project the private sector consortium is responsible for
financing the project as well as designing, constructing and maintaining the assets.
The need to have a sound financial position is also emphasised in the PPP Guidelines. (2009)
in relation to the criteria for selecting the private sector provider; the company should have
paid up capital to be at least 10 per cent of the project value (PPP Guidelines, 2009).
The importance of this performance indicator is also in line with Ismail (2013a), who found
that the capability of the private sector to finance a PPP project through flexible and
attractive financial instruments is one of the most critical factors for PPP project success.
The lowest ranking performance indicator for financing and markets as perceived
by all respondents was “Increased marketability”. This performance indicator is related to
the ability of the entities to optimise the cash flow of PPP projects and improve
marketability, to overcome and deal with financial issues faced by the Special Purpose
Vehicle (Yuan et al., 2008, 2012). The result is consistent with Yuan et al. (2012), who also
found this performance indicator is not viewed as important.
Differences in the perceptions of the public and private sectors. As illustrated in Table V,
both sectors perceived all the 12 performance indicators of financing and markets as
“important” with the mean scores for the public sector ranging from 3.60 to 4.63 for the
public sector and from 3.32 to 4.00 for the private sector. Moreover, the public sector
respondents perceived all the performance indicators as more important than did the private
sector respondents. This is evidenced by the higher mean scores for each indicator in the
public sector group. The top five performance indicators as ranked by the public sector
were “Operational cost”, “Construction cost”, “Construction period”, “Financial ability of
contractor and investors” and “Concession period”.
As for the private sector respondents, they ranked “Operational cost” as the most
important performance indicator, followed by “Sustainability profitability”, “Financial
ability of contractor and investors”, “Construction cost” and “Realistic schedule of Performance
investment, revenue”. However, both sectors ranked “Increased marketability” as the least indicators for
important performance indicator. “Sustainability profitability” was ranked ninth by the PPP projects
public sector respondents, but the private sector group ranked it as the second most
important performance indicator for the financing and markets component. It is likely that
the private sector perceived it as a more important performance indicator because private
sector companies are profit-oriented and therefore profitability is one of the fundamental 145
performance measures besides other measures such as share values.
To further investigate the differences between the two groups of respondents in terms of
the perceived importance of the performance indicators for financing and markets, an
independent t-test was conducted. Table VI provides the results of an independent t-test on
the performance indicators for PPP financing and markets. Based on the results, the
difference in terms of importance as perceived by the two groups of respondents was
statistically significant for only one of the performance indicators.
The result that the public sector group perceived “construction period” as significantly
more important than the private sector is expected. This is because one of the justifications
for the government to engage private sector in delivering public facilities via PPP is to
overcome the issue of delay in completion of government projects under the traditional
procurement (Abdul Aziz and Kassim, 2011). Moreover, the public sector has the primary
responsibility to provide infrastructure to the public within a stipulated period of time,
hence fulfilling such responsibility is of utmost importance for good governance and
political edge. However, the less rating of this indicator by the private sector was
unexpected because repayment to the private sector consortium is only made upon
completion of the construction of the PPP projects (PPP Guidelines, 2009).

Performance indicators for innovation and learnings

Overall perception on the importance of the performance indicators. Table VII depicts the
mean scores and the mean score ranking of the relative importance of each of the
performance indicators related to the innovation and learnings component of PPP as
perceived by all respondents and by each group of respondents. Based on the mean scores,
all six indicators were perceived by all respondents as important because the mean scores
range from 3.91 to 4.10. The top three performance indicators for innovation and learnings
in descending order of preference were “Technology innovation”, “Employee training” and
“Financial innovation”. The least important performance indicator was “Investment in
research and development of new technology”. The “Technology innovation” performance

No. Performance Indicator F-value t-value Significant

1. Construction period 1.774 2.869 0.000***

2. Perfect tariff/tolls or price adjustment mechanism for the project 1.637 2.035 0.202
3. Increased marketability 0.876 0.993 0.350
4. Realistic schedule of investment, revenue 0.425 1.131 0.515
5. Low financing cost 0.292 1.781 0.589
6. Sound financial analysis and operation 0.002 2.367 0.964 Table VI.
7. Concession period 0.168 2.492 0.682 Independent t-test
8. Construction cost 0.160 2.932 0.689 results for
9. Financial ability of contractor and investors 0.059 1.882 0.808 performance
10. Sustainable profitability 0.030 0.617 0.863 indicators in relation
11. Insurance coverage 0.013 2.016 0.909 to financing
12. Operational cost 0.010 2.316 0.918 and markets
JEAS indicator was ranked first by all respondents. Innovation in technology, design, construction
34,2 and operation is an important feature of a PPP project. According to the study by Ismail
(2013b), innovation introduced by a private sector consortium in a PPP project is one of the
fundamental VFM drivers. In other words, the greater the innovation introduced in a PPP
project, the greater the VFM from the project. The result is consistent with Yuan et al. (2012),
who found that this performance indicator is among the most important indicators in
146 relation to innovation and learnings in PPP.
“Employee training” was the second most important performance indicator as perceived
by all respondents. Staff as the main resource in an organisation should be given continuous
training and learning opportunities to gain new knowledge, information and skills to
improve individual performance as well as organisational performance (Yuan et al., 2008.,
2009). Furthermore, because PPP projects are complex and require new skills and support
services, intensive and appropriate training is fundamental to enhance the competency of
public sector officers, especially in monitoring PPP projects (Ninth Malaysia Plan, 2006).
However, the result is inconsistent with Yuan et al. (2012), who found that this performance
indicator is viewed as less important.
The third most important indicator for innovation and learnings in relation to PPP
projects in Malaysia as perceived by all respondents was “Financial innovation”. Financial
innovation refers to the advances over time in the financial instruments and payment
systems used in the lending and borrowing of funds. It is a fundamental aspect of PPP
implementation as PPP projects are mostly huge, high-cost projects. Therefore, having other
options for financing PPP projects is crucial to ensure the sustainability of the PPP scheme
in Malaysia. The result is in line with the finding in Yuan et al. (2012). Of the six performance
indicators, “Investment in research and development of new technology”, with a mean value
of 3.91, was ranked last by all respondents. A possible reason for this result might be that
investment in the research and development of new technology involves a huge amount of
funds and a longer period to accomplish. Furthermore, the output is still at the experimental
stage and the efficiency of the new technology has not been tested. The result contradicts
that in Yuan et al. (2012), who found that the “Establishment of learning organisation”
indicator is the least important performance indicator.
Differences in the perceptions of the public and private sectors. Based on the mean score
results illustrated in Table VII, both sectors (public and private sectors) perceived all six
performance indicators as important. In addition, the public sector respondents perceived all
the indicators as more important than the private sector respondents. This is evidenced by
the higher mean scores of each indicator in the public sector group. The public sector group
ranked “Technology innovation” and “Technology transfer:” as the first and second most
important performance indicators, respectively, of the innovation and learnings component,

Overall Public sector Private sector

No. Performance indicator Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank Mean SD Rank

Table VII. 1. Technology innovation (e.g. designing,

Perception of survey construction, planning, etc.) 4.10 0.950 1 4.21 0.910 1 3.80 0.995 1
respondents 2. Employee training 4.05 0.958 2 4.17 0.955 3 3.70 0.885 3
concerning the 3. Financial innovation (e.g. creative
relative importance financial package) 4.03 0.982 3 4.13 0.946 4 3.77 1.035 2
of performance 4. Technology transfer 4.01 1.015 4 4.18 0.971 2 3.55 0.991 5
indicators in relation 5. Establishment of learning organisation 3.94 0.974 5 4.08 0.943 5 3.55 0.958 6
to innovation 6. Investment in research and development
and learnings of new technology 3.91 1.000 6 4.03 0.964 6 3.56 1.022 4
while the third most important indicator was “Employee training”. As for the least Performance
important performance indicator, the public sector respondents ranked “Investment in indicators for
research and development of new technology” last. PPP projects
In the case of the private sector, the group also ranked “Technology innovation” as the
most important performance indicator of the innovation and learnings component, while
they ranked “Financial innovation” and “Employee training” as the second and third most
important indicators, respectively. As for the last ranked performance indicator, the private 147
sector respondents perceived “Establishment of learning organisation” as the least
important. Based on the mean score ranking results, there is not much difference between
the two groups in terms of their rankings of all the performance indicators for innovation
and learnings, except for “Technology transfer” where the public sector respondents ranked
it higher (second) than the private sector group (fifth). The result was expected because the
idea of a having PPP scheme is to take advantage of the greater capability of the
private sector in delivering a high technology project (Akintoye et al., 2003; Li et al., 2005;
Ismail, 2013b). In other words, the spirit behind having private sector involvement in
development projects via a PPP is for the public sector to learn and gain the benefit from
private sector expertise such as through technology transfer.
To further scrutinise the differences between the two groups of respondents in terms of the
perceived importance of the performance indicators for innovation and learnings, an independent
t-test was conducted. The results in Table VIII show that there is no significant difference in the
perceptions of the public and private sectors pertaining to the indicators of innovation and
learnings for the PPP scheme at the 1 per cent significance level except for one indicator with
marginally significant, i.e. “Investment in research and development of new technology”.
The result that the public sector group perceived “Investment in research and
development of new technology” significantly more important than the private sector is
commensurate with the recent emphasis that has been placed on research and development
by the Malaysian government, which has allocated a significant budget for that purpose.
In the 2013 budget, the Malaysian government allocated RM600 million to five research
universities to do high-impact research on strategic aspects such as nano-technology,
bio-technology and aerospace (Mohd Najib, 2012). In addition, the Government introduced
the Research Incentive Scheme for Enterprise in the 2015 budget, allocating RM10 million to
encourage companies to establish research centres for high technology, information
and communication technology and the knowledge-based industry (Mohd Najib, 2014).
As for the private sector, investment in research and development is already part and parcel
of their business activities.

5. Implications, limitations and future research

The present study aimed to explore the perception of the two key PPP players, namely, the
government or public sector and private sector companies of the performance indicators of

No. Performance Indicator F-value t-value Significant

1. Investment in research and development of new technology 2.900 3.207 0.000*** Table VIII.
2. Financial innovation 1.813 2.482 0.179 Independent t-test
results for the
3. Establishment of learning organisation 1.114 3.826 0.292
perception of
4. Technology innovation 0.804 2.889 0.371 performance
5. Technology transfer 0.771 4.426 0.381 indicators in relation
6. Employee training 0.122 3.554 0.727 to Innovation
Note: *Significant at 1 per cent and learnings
JEAS various aspects PPP implementation in Malaysia. In addition, the study also sought to
34,2 explore the differences in the perceptions of the two parties on these issues. The current
study contributes to knowledge as well as to practice.
First, this study contributes to the literature on the performance of PPP projects in
developing countries, and specifically in the Malaysian context, by investigating the
perception of the relative importance of the performance indicators of PPP projects.
148 In addition, the findings of the present study on the important performance indicators
specifically for “financing and markets” and “innovation and learnings” of PPP
implementation offer insightful evidence, particularly for UKAS who may wish to
consider having a systematic monitoring mechanism of PPP performance in terms of
construction cost, operational cost, construction period and technology innovation.
Emphasising on these critical aspects of PPP performance may ensure the achievement of
better VFM from PPP implementation in Malaysia.
Second, the results may provide useful information to various parties including
academicians, practitioners and regulatory bodies on the importance of performance
indicators of PPP implementation in Malaysia. In particular, the findings to some extent
may provide ideas for and guidance to regulatory bodies such as UKAS regarding
improving and revising the PPP guidelines and procedures related to financial and
innovation aspects of PPP implementation. This is because the implementation of PPPs is
continuously progressing in Malaysia. Therefore, clear and more detailed guidelines and
procedures on PPP financing and better innovation should be made available.
Third, with regards to the differences in the perceptions of the public and private sectors
concerning the construction period and investment in research of new technology
performance indicators, a better understanding of the roles and responsibilities of each
party particularly in these aspects of performance is necessary to ensure both parties
benefit, which will lead to the maximum benefit being gained from the project not only by
the government and the private sector companies but more importantly the public at large
(Ismail and Haris, 2014b).
Nonetheless, this study has some limitations that should be noted. First, a common
limitation of the postal questionnaire method is the issue of losing control over who completes
the questionnaire. The respondents who answer the questionnaire may lack the time to do so
due to job commitments, the possibility of questions being ambiguous and lead to
misunderstand and the non-completion of some parts of the questionnaire. The respondents
may also not truthfully answer the survey because fear of negative consequences as a result of
reveal perception about the future effect. Second, this study only used the survey method to
gather data on the perceptions of the two groups of respondents. The use of the questionnaire
method to determine the perceptions of the public sector and private sector on key elements of
PPP in Malaysia might not be able to fully capture the overall understanding and perception
of the respondents. Therefore, future research may opt to use focus groups, case studies or
interviews as research methods. The third limitation of the present study is that it involves
only two stakeholders of PPP projects – the public and private sectors. These sectors seem to
be the most appropriate stakeholders to contribute to this study because both sectors are
directly affected by and involved in PPP projects. However, other stakeholders such as the
general public and academicians could be the respondents of future research.

6. Conclusion
Despite the above-mentioned limitations, this study has provided relevant information and
has obtain findings to stimulate more interest in this area of research and pave the way for
future studies on the performance indicators of PPP projects in the Malaysian context.
Thus, this exploratory study is only an initial step in exploring the topic of performance
indicators in PPP projects. There is no doubt that future research in this area is called for.
References Performance
Abdul Aziz, A.R. and Kassim, P.S.J. (2011), “Objectives, success and failure factors of housing public- indicators for
private partnerships in Malaysia”, Habitat International, Vol. 35 No. 1, pp. 150-157. PPP projects
Akintoye, A., Hardcastle, C., Beck, M., Chinyio, E. and Asenova, D. (2003), “Achieving best value in
private finance initiative project procurement”, Construction Management and Economics,
Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 461-470.
Ball, R., Heafey, M. and King, D. (2007), “The private finance initiative in the UK: a value for money and 149
economic analysis”, Public Management Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 289-310.
Colman, J. (2000), “Examining the value for money of deals under the private finance initiative/public
private partnership”, Public Policy and Administration, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 72-82.
Coulson, A. (2008), “Value for money in PFI proposals: a commentary on the UK treasury guidelines for
public sectors comparators”, Public Administration, Vol. 86 No. 2, pp. 483-498.
Demirag, I. and Khadaroo, I. (2008), “Accountability and value for money in private finance initiative
contracts”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 455-478.
English, L.M. (2007), “Performance audit of Australian public private partnership: legitimising
government policies or providing independent oversight?”, Financial Accountability and
Management, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp. 313-336.
Froud, J. and Shaoul, J. (2001), “Appraising and evaluating PFI for NHS hospitals”, Financial
Accountability and Management, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 247-270.
Garvin, M.J. and Bosso, D. (2008), “Assessing the effectiveness of infrastructure public – private partnership
programs and projects”, Public Works Management and Policy, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 162-178.
Garvin, M., Molenaar, K., Navarro, D. and Proctor, G. (2011), “Key performance indicators in
public-private partnerships a state-of-the-practice report”, Report No. FHWA-PL-10-029,
International Technology Scanning Program.
Hurst, C. and Reeves, E. (2004), “An economic analysis of Ireland’s first public private partnership”,
The International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 17 No. 5, pp. 379-388.
Ismail, S. (2009), “Key Performance indicators for private finance initiative in Malaysia”, unpublished
master thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.
Ismail, S. (2012), “What drives value for money of Public Private Partnership (PPP) Projects
implementation in Malaysia”, paper presented at Persidangan Kebangsaan Ekonomi Malaysia
Ke VII (PERKEM VII), June.
Ismail, S. (2013a), “Critical success factors of Public Private Partnership (PPP) implementation in
Malaysia”, Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, Vol. 5 No. 1, pp. 6-19.
Ismail, S. (2013b), “Factors attracting the use of public private partnership in Malaysia”, Journal of
Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 95-108.
Ismail, S. (2014), “Driving forces for implementation of Public Private Partnerships (PPP) In Malaysia
and a comparison with the United Kingdom”, Journal of Economic and Administrative Sciences,
Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 1-19.
Ismail, S. and Haris, F.A. (2014b), “Rationales for Public Private Partnership (PPP) implementation
in Malaysia”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 19 No. 3,
pp. 1-25.
Ismail, S. and Pendlebury, M. (2006), “The private finance initiative (PFI) in schools: the experiences of
users”, Financial Accountability and Management, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 381-404.
Jones, D.S. (2013), “Key failings in the Malaysian public procurement system and how they can be
addressed by greater transparency”, Policy Ideas No. 7, Institute for Democracy and Economic
Affairs, October, available at: www.IDEAS.org.my (accessed 17 December 2013).
Li, B., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P.J. and Hardcastle, C. (2005), “Critical success factors for PPP/PFI
projects in the UK construction industry”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 23
No. 5, pp. 459-471.
JEAS McWatters, C.S., Zimmerman, J.L. and Morse, D.C. (2008), Management Accounting Analysis and
34,2 Interpretation, Pearson, Edinburg.
Marty, F., Trosa, S. and Voisin, A. (2005), “The financial determinants of government commitment in
public-private partnerships”, International Journal of Public Policy, Vol. 1 Nos 1/2, pp. 41-57.
Mohd Najib, A.R. (2010), “Speech by the prime minister during introduction the motion to table the
tenth Malaysia plan in the Dewan Rakyat”, available at: pmo.gov.my/documentattached/speech/
150 files /RMK10 _Speech.pdf (accessed 31 March 2013).
Mohd Najib, A.R. (2012), “Budget speech 2013”, available at: www.pmo.gov.my/dokumenattached/
bajet2013/SPEECH_BUDGET_2013_28092012_E.pdf (accessed 6 November 2014).
Mohd Najib, A.R. (2014), “Budget speech 2015”, available at: www.pmo.gov.my/bajet2015/Budget2015.
pdf (accessed 6 November 2014).
Morallos, D. and Amekudzi, A. (2008), “The state of the practice of value for money analysis in
comparing public private partnerships to traditional procurements”, Public Works Management
and Policy, Vol. 13 No. 2, pp. 114-125.
National Audit Department (2012), “Auditor General’s Report series 2 on the activities of federal
statutory bodies and the management of subsidiary companies”, available at: www.audit.gov.
my/images/pdf/LKAN2012/BBP/Siri2.pdf (accessed 4 October 2013).
Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006), “Ninth Malaysia Plan (2006-2010)”, available at: www.epu.jpm.my/rm9/
html/english.htm (accessed 31 March 2013).
Pollock, A.M., Price, D. and Player, S. (2007), “An examination of the UK treasury’s evidence base for
cost and time overrun data in UK value-for-money policy and appraisal”, Public Money and
Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 127-134.
PPP Guidelines (2009), available at: www.ukas.gov.my/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=02f1ea81-80
75-4387-8b69-ebb2120292f1&groupId=15223 (accessed 3 January 2018).
Takim, R., Abdul-Rahman, R., Ismail, K. and Egbu, C.O. (2008), “The acceptability of private finance
initiative (PFI) scheme in Malaysia”, Asian Social Science, Vol. 4 No. 12, pp. 71-82.
Takim, R., Ismail, K., Nawawi, A.H. and Jaafar, A. (2009), “The Malaysia private finance initiative and
value for money”, Asian Social Science, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 103-111.
Tenth Malaysia Plan (2011), available at: www.epu.gov.my/tenth (accessed 31 March 2013).
Winch, G.M., Onishi, M. and Schmidt, S. (2012), “Summary of research report 126: taking stock of PPP
and PFI around the World”, Certified Accountants Educational Trust, London.
Yuan, J., Skibniewski, M.J. and Li, Q. (2008), “Managing the performance of public private partnership
projects to achieve value for money: key performance indicators selection”, Presented at
International Conference on Multi-National Construction Projects, Shanghai, November.
Yuan, J., Skibniewski, M.J., Li, Q. and Zheng, L. (2010), “Performance objectives selection model in
public private partnership projects based on the perspective of stakeholders”, Journal of
Management in Engineering, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 89-104.
Yuan, J., Wang, C., Skibniewski, M.J. and Li, Q. (2012), “Developing key performance indicators for
public private partnership projects: questionnaire survey and analysis”, Journal of Management
in Engineering, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 252-264.
Yuan, J., Zeng, A.Y., Skibniewski, M.J. and Li, Q. (2009), “Selection of performance objectives and key
performance indicators in public-private partnership projects to achieve value for money”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 253-270.

Further reading
Abdul Aziz, A.R. (2010), “Housing private public partnerships: perspective from the government
agencies”, paper presented at 4th NAPREC Conference organised by INSPEN, September.
Abdul Rashid, K. (2013), “Implementation of the Malaysian Public Private Partnership (PPP)”,
in Ismail, S. (Ed.), Public Private Partnership (PPP) Malaysia Studies, IIUM Press.
Chan, A.P.C. and Chan, A.P.L. (2004), “Key performance indicators for measuring construction Performance
Success”, Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 203-221. indicators for
Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S. (2011), Business Research Methods, McGraw-Hill, Irwin, IA. PPP projects
George, D. and Mallery, M. (2010), SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference,
17.0 update, 10a ed., Pearson, Boston, MA.
Ghalayini, A.M. and Noble, J.S. (1996), “The changing basis of performance measurement”,
International Journal of Operations and Product Management, Vol. 16 No. 8, pp. 63-80. 151
Grimsey, D. and Lewis, M.K. (2002), “Accounting for public private partnerships”, Accounting Forum,
Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 245-270.
Hampton, G., Baldwin, A.N. and Holt, G. (2012), “Project delays and cost: stakeholder perceptions of
traditional v. PPP procurement”, Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction,
Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 73-91.
Henjewele, C., Sun, M. and Fewings, P. (2014), “Comparative performance of healthcare and transport
PFI projects: empirical study on the influence of key factors”, International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 32 No. 1, pp. 77-87.
Ismail, S. (2011). Private Finance Initiative in the United Kingdom, Lambert Academic Publishing.
Ismail, S. and Abdul Rashid, K. (2007), “Private finance initiative (PFI) in Malaysia: the need for and
issues related to the public sector comparator (PSC)”, Jurnal Akuntansi dan Keuangan Indonesia,
Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 137-154.
Ismail, S. and Asuhaimi, F. (2013), “Private sector involvement and Public Private Partnership (PPP)
in Malaysia”, in Ismail, S. (Ed.), Public Private Partnership (PPP) Malaysia Studies, IIUM Press.
Ismail, S. and Haris, F.A. (2014a), “Constraints in implementing Public Private Partnership (PPP) in
Malaysia”, Built Environment Project and Asset Management, Vol. 4 No. 3, pp. 238-250.
Ismail, K., Takim, R. and Nawawi, A.H. (2011), “The evaluation criteria of value for money (VFM) of
Public Private Partnership (PPP) bids”, paper presented at 2011 International Conference
of Intelligent Building and Management organised by IACSIT Press, Singapore.
Jacobson, C. and Choi, S.O. (2008), “Success factors: public works and public-private partnerships”,
International Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 637-657.
Jayaseelan, R. and Tan, M. (2006), “PFI – cure for all Ills?”, The Edge Malaysia, pp. 72-74.
Khaderi, S.S. and Aziz, A.R. (2010), “Adoption of private finance initiative (PFI) in Malaysia
public works projects: are we ready?”, TG72-Special Track 18th CIB World Building Congress,
May, Salford.
Khairuddin (2009), “Implementation of the Malaysian Public Private Partnership (PPP)”, in Ismail, S.
(Ed.), Public Private Partnership (PPP) Malaysia Studies, IIUM Press.
Kline, R.B. (1998), Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling, The Guilford Press,
New York, NY.
Locke, E.A. (1968), “Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives”, Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, Vol. 3 No. 2, pp. 157-189.
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (1990), “A theory of goal setting and task performance”, Locke’s Goal
Setting Theory – Understanding SMART Goal Setting, available at: www.mindtools.com/pages/
article/ newHTE_87.htm (accessed 20 April 2013).
Locke, E.A. and Latham, G.P. (2002), “Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task
motivation, a 35-year odyssey”, American Psychologist, Vol. 57 No. 9, pp. 705-717.
National Economic Advisory Council (2010), “New economic model for Malaysia concluding part:
strategic policy measures.available at: www.pmo.gov.my/documentattached/NEM_
Concluding_Part.pdf (accessed 31 March 2013).
Nisar, T.M. (2007), “Value for money drivers in public private partnership schemes”, International
Journal of Public Sector Management, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 147-156.
JEAS Nor Mohamed, Y. (2010), “Opening remarks at seminar on designing a world-class public-private
34,2 partnership infrastructure and framework for Malaysia organised by public private partnership
unit”, Prime Minister’s Department and Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation.
Pallant, J. (2001), SPSS Survivor Manual A Step by Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for
Windows, IL.
Privatization Master Plan (1983), available at: www.epu.gov.my/en/dasar-penswastaan) (accessed
31 March, 2013).
152
Robinson, H.S. and Scott, J. (2009), “Service delivery and performance monitoring in PFI/PPP projects”,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 181-197.
Rusmani, N. (2010), “Public private partnership in New Zealand and Malaysia, unpublished master
thesis”, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington.
Shaoul, J. (2009), “Using the private sector finance capital expenditure: the financial realities”,
in Akintoye and Beck (Ed.), Policy, Finance & Management for Public Private Partnership,
Wiley-Blackwell.
Siddiquee, N.A. (2011), “Rhetoric and reality of public private partnerships: learning points from the
Australian experience”, Asian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 129-148.
Syed Ibrahim (2007), Malaysia Kita, Panduan dan Rujukan untuk Peperiksaan Am Kerajaan,
International Law Book Services.
Takim, R., Ismail, K. and Nawawi, A.H. (2011), “A value for money assessment method for public
private partnership: a lesson from Malaysia approach”, presented at 2011 International
Conference on Economics and Finance Research IPEDR organised by IACSIT Press, Singapore.
Zhang, X. (2006a), “Public clients’ best value perspectives of public private partnerships in
infrastructure development”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132
No. 2, pp. 107-114.
Zhang, X. (2006b), “Factor analysis of public clients’ best-value objective in public–privately partnered
infrastructure projects”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 132 No. 9,
pp. 956-965.
Zhang, X. (2009), “Best value concessionaire selection through a Fuzzy logic system”, Expert Systems
with Applications, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 7519-7527.

Corresponding author
Suhaiza Ismail can be contacted at: suhaiza@iium.edu.my

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com