Quantitative Analysis of Critical Success Factors in the Development of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Project Briefs in the United Arab Emirates
1
Department of Architectural Engineering, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain 15551, United Arab Emirates
2
Healthy and Sustainable Buildings Research Center, Department of Architecture, Ajman University, Ajman 346, United Arab Emirates
3
Department of Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University, Montreal, QC H3G 1M8, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2024, 14(12), 4067; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14124067
Submission received: 8 November 2024
/
Revised: 15 December 2024
/
Accepted: 17 December 2024
/
Published: 21 December 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Public–Private Partnerships (PPPs) for Construction Project Deliveries)
Abstract
:This paper presents the research findings on Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) brief development in the United Arab Emirates. A questionnaire survey was conducted to assess and rank the relative importance of the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) identified in PPP brief development in the UAE. A quantitative analysis was then conducted on the data gathered from the survey, and the results of the analysis are described. The processes of purifying and computing the measurement instruments are also explored using Cronbach’s alpha to assess the reliability of scale measurements. The statistical analysis focuses on the importance and ranking of the identified thirty-eight (38) CSFs and their Sub-Success Factors (SSFs). The overall assessment of these factors highlights their importance in a brief development process. Accordingly, these factors are grouped into seven categories, and the developed CSF framework is presented. The categories, listed in descending order, are Regulatory and Legal Factors; Finance and Economic Factors; Risk-Related Factors; Public Sector Capacity-Related Factors; Procurement-Related Factors; Stakeholder-Related Factors; and Social, Cultural, and Ethical Factors. The research findings offer a comprehensive framework of CSFs for brief development tailored to the unique PPP environment of the UAE to ensure project success.
1. Introduction
The briefing process is the preliminary stage of the design process of a project. It is considered the initial step toward establishing an effective client-architect/designer relationship. Successful briefing can ensure project delivery at the target time, cost, and quality [1]. The briefing process is described as a stage or series of stages within the design or construction process, forming a segment of the overall life cycle of the construction project. Typically, it is developed through a systematic approach to inquiry, making the client’s requirements explicit and comprehensible. A clear and comprehensive client brief is essential for reducing change orders and improving project performance [1,2,3].
In the context of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects, the briefing stage is an early phase that serves as the foundation for project development. It establishes the initial framework for the project’s lifecycle, ensuring alignment among stakeholders regarding objectives, expectations, and feasibility. The briefing stage in PPP projects is crucial for ensuring project success [4,5]. Tang [6] argued that conventional project briefing models are ineffective for PPP projects due to their generalized nature. He identified key differences in the PPP briefing process: (a) procurement-specific steps, such as preparing a Public Sector Comparator (PSC) to assess value-for-money (VfM) and compare bids; (b) a more focused feasibility study; and (c) a detailed consideration of financial and risk-related issues. Additionally, PPP briefs should include information on the project program, risk management, output specifications, and payment mechanisms [6].
Critical Success Factors (CSFs) are the essential conditions and elements required for project success [4]. Rockart [7] introduced the concept of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) as a method for identifying key areas where a business must excel to achieve success. This approach builds upon the concept of “success factors”, which was first discussed in the management literature by Ronald Daniel in 1961 [7].
In the context of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) projects, Critical Success Factors (CSFs) are essential elements for their successful implementation. They provide guidance for decision-making, enhance project execution, and improve stakeholder satisfaction. A review of the literature reveals that numerous researchers have proposed various CSF lists for the success of PPP projects across all stages [5,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17]. For example, Tang et al. [18] investigated the CSFs for PPP briefing, with a particular focus on the Australian environment. They identified 50 factors grouped into four main categories: procurement, stakeholders, risk, and finance.
Recently, Cisneros et al. [17] analyzed PPP challenges and CSFs for road Infrastructure in Peru. The authors proposed 17 Critical Success Factors (CSFs) based on an extensive review of the international literature. These CSFs encompass aspects ranging from transparent bidding processes and political support to legal frameworks, community engagement, and technical feasibility. Furthermore, Guerrero et al. [12] examined the Critical Success Factors (CSFs) or determinant features essential for addressing Saudi Arabia’s infrastructure gap under a PPP scheme. The study identified five key factors: an effective regulatory and legal framework, adequate risk allocation among stakeholders, clear project briefs with defined client outcomes, robust feasibility studies ensuring business viability, and reliable project value management systems across all stages.
According to Dulaimi et al. [19], the CSFs in PPPs are typically influenced by the specific characteristics of each project. Furthermore, Kwak et al. [20] noted that despite variations in CSF lists, the success or failure of PPP projects generally depends on four key factors: government competence, selecting an appropriate concessionaire, proper risk allocation between the public and private sectors, and securing a sound financial package.
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has the largest Public-Private Partnership (PPP) market among Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. PPPs are increasingly being used to accelerate infrastructure development in the UAE [21]. The growth of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in the UAE is driven by various factors, including economic diversification, infrastructure development, and government initiatives to attract private sector participation. The UAE has become a regional leader in adopting PPP models, creating a solid foundation for private sector involvement in government projects. This commitment was further strengthened by Federal Law No. 12 of 2023, introduced by the Ministry of Finance to organize and promote PPPs across various sectors. This law aims to streamline project selection, reduce financial risk to the government, and offer incentives to the private sector. It supports the UAE’s broader goals by ensuring efficient project delivery and maximizing private sector contributions. The law also impacts PPP briefing processes by requiring clear guidelines for project development and risk management. According to Helou [22], the law encourages private sector involvement in strategic projects within a transparent framework, enhancing efficiency, leveraging private resources, and speeding up project timelines.
A review of the literature reveals that few studies have focused on the Critical Success Factors associated with the brief development processes of PPP projects, particularly in the context of the UAE. The primary aim of the research presented in this paper is to highlight the importance of CSFs in the brief development of PPP projects in the UAE and to identify, assess, and rank their relative importance through a structured questionnaire.
The paper begins by identifying CSFs for PPP projects in general, based on previous studies, with a focus on the briefing stage. It then outlines the research methodology used for data collection and analysis. The findings are subsequently presented, followed by a discussion of the results and key outcomes.
2. PPP Brief Development and Critical Success Factors: A Review
Several studies have emphasized the critical role of construction project briefing in ensuring successful project delivery. Othman [23] identifies the briefing process as a cornerstone for achieving client satisfaction, citing its pivotal role in “eliciting and communicating the client’s requirements to the design and construction teams. Both Mahat et al. and Nasirzadeh et al. [1,2] highlight the importance of a clear and comprehensive client brief in minimizing change orders and enhancing project performance. Yu et al. [24] Identify two main schools of thought on construction project briefing: one treats the brief as a static document finalized after a critical period, while the other views it as a dynamic, iterative process evolving throughout the early project life. The briefing process is often referred to and developed through a stage or series of stages, representing a critical part of the overall life cycle of a construction project. Briefing development can generally be divided into two main phases: strategic briefing and project briefing [25,26,27]. Based on design specifications that address the client’s requirements, as expressed in the strategic briefing [28], the strategic briefing outlines the mission of the business project and its alignment with the corporate objectives of the client organization, whereas the project briefing translates the strategic briefing into physical terms.
In the context of a PPP project, brief development is a critical phase in its lifecycle. It involves the creation of a comprehensive document that outlines the project’s objectives, scope, requirements, and framework for engagement with potential private sector partners. In an earlier stage of this research work, the fundamental stages, standard processes, and critical decision points involved in the PPP briefing process were examined and investigated through a comparative analysis of briefing frameworks used in three countries that are among the top in the PPP Market Maturity chart. A conceptual process framework for PPP briefing was proposed. This framework comprises three phases: the strategic, feasibility, and procurement phases. The strategic phase focuses on needs analysis, project parameter definition, scoping, and options appraisal, resulting in a project Strategic Brief. The feasibility phase includes project due diligence, risk management, and financial assessment, culminating in the Feasibility Brief. The procurement phase covers stakeholder consultations, project development, market interest confirmation, issuing a request for proposals, and delivering the Final Project Brief. Appendix A outlines these three phases and their key briefing activities, along with detailed tasks. Further details are presented in [3]. The above process framework was utilized to develop an initial list of success factors associated with the listed activities, which was further refined, as explained in the following sections.
Critical Success Factors in PPP Brief Development
Reviewing the literature, several researchers have investigated Critical Success Factors (CSFs) for PPP projects, proposing various lists of CSFs essential for success throughout all project stages. During the strategic project brief, analyzing the needs of a PPP project is an essential early step in its development. Akintoye and Donnelly [29] emphasized the importance of aligning the briefing with the client’s strategic goals. They highlighted the need for unambiguous output specifications that can be effectively interpreted by the ’special purpose vehicle’ (SPV). Similarly, Zeegers and Ang [30] stressed that output specifications are central to the contract and require careful attention. Furthermore, Tang et al. [18] identified a brief writer’s experience, adequate briefing time, and process control as key procurement-related success factors.
A feasibility study is an essential process in developing a PPP feasibility brief. The success of public services and infrastructure projects in PPP schemes is directly influenced by the initial feasibility study conducted during the briefing stage [31]. Amponsah [32] emphasized that comprehensive feasibility studies with robust financial and economic analyses can help prevent issues and delays during negotiation and procurement. Tang et al. [18] identified a practical budget, program, and proposed commercial arrangements as key finance-related factors for a successful PPP briefing in Australia.
Financial and economic analyses are also essential components of the feasibility study. The Asian Development Bank [33] highlighted project financing as a critical factor for the private sector in PPP infrastructure projects, noting that accessible financial markets encourage private sector involvement, especially in inefficient or mature markets. Li et al. [11] also supported this, ranking “available financial market” third in their study of Critical Success Factors in the UK PPP/PFI environment. Financial assessment is a crucial part of a feasibility study for PPP brief development. It includes tasks such as building the Public Sector Comparator (PSC), creating the PPP reference model, establishing the payment mechanism, and proving affordability. Several other feasibility and finance-related success factors in PPP briefing are identified and included in Appendix A.
In addition, stakeholder management is a key aspect of PPP briefing development. Efficient and effective stakeholder relationships are crucial for the success of PPP projects. Furthermore, transparency and trust are also vital in the process [18]. Alan [34,35] noted that stakeholders are less likely to engage if they feel decisions are predetermined or distrust the process, leading to participation or withdrawal. They argued that stakeholder management could be more complex due to the involvement of “user clients” and “paying clients”. Thus, the briefing process must effectively capture and satisfy the commercial and/or social needs of all stakeholders that constitute the client group.
The decision-making processes of various stakeholders during the briefing stage can also be influenced by cultural and ethical issues. Culture and ethics play a significant role in decision-making during this phase [36]. Effective management of the PPP briefing team requires an understanding of the backgrounds and values of the stakeholders. Cultural and ethical differences become particularly important when international investors and stakeholders come from diverse countries with varying cultures, values, and business environments. According to Yu [37], cultural dimensions, such as language, time orientation, use of space, and religion, must be carefully considered during the briefing stage. Furthermore, ethical decision-making is shaped by personal values, organizational culture, government regulations, and societal norms.
Risk management is another important process in the brief development of a PPP project. A considerable number of risks arise from the complexity of PPP arrangements, including documentation, financing, taxation, technical details, and agreements. Effective risk identification and assessment must begin during the project inception stage. Unlike conventional procurement, PPP risks are allocated to the party best positioned to manage them [38,39,40]. This requires a risk-transfer strategy, where risks that can be better managed by the private sector are transferred to the private party, while those more suitable for the public sector are retained [41]. According to research by [41,42,43], delivery risks should be allocated to the private sector, while the public sector can more effectively manage site acquisition and legal and policy risks. Shen et al. [44] asserted that shared risks, such as development, market, financial, and force majeure, can be managed collaboratively. Gunnigan [42] argued that while the private sector is well suited to managing design, construction, operation, and industrial action risks, the public sector should retain ultimate responsibility for the operation of services critical to society to prevent their failure, regardless of how the risk is allocated.
The public sector’s capacity is crucial for managing PPP projects. UNESCAP [45] emphasized that the qualifications and experience of public staff, along with the technical capacity of government agencies, are key to addressing challenges and planning for contingencies. Additionally, having defined government mechanisms, such as a PPP Unit, and accessible PPP documentation and best practices are vital for effective briefing and project success.
The availability and effectiveness of a proper regulatory and legal framework are critical for PPP brief development, ensuring that laws are in place to address legal issues and support the procurement process [45]. It is the public sector’s role to provide an independent, fair, and efficient legal system to attract top-tier partners, which is essential for the bankability and stability of PPP agreements. Pongsiri [46] highlighted two benefits of a well-defined framework: first, it ensures efficient partnerships that are aligned with legal systems and policy objectives; second, it protects the private sector from expropriation by enabling arbitration and ensuring fair recovery of costs and profits.
In the UAE PPP environment, Dulaimi et al. [19] analyzed critical success and failure factors through three case studies, highlighting factors related to Public Sector Capacity in PPP briefings, including political support and stability, government assistance throughout the project, and the financial capacity to meet PPP obligations. Additionally, Abdou and Al Zarooni [47] developed a preliminary list of potential CSFs for UAE healthcare projects procured under PPP schemes. Almarri and Abu-Hijleh [48] identified nine key CSFs for PPP implementation that are agreed upon in both the UK and UAE, including public-private commitment, risk allocation, competent public agencies, transparent procurement, strong private consortiums, political support, cost-benefit assessment, and good governance. Recently, Alteneiji et al. [49] investigated possible CSFs for PPP in affordable housing in the UAE. The most identified CSFs were good governance, government guarantees, commitment and responsibility of the public and private sectors, favorable and efficient legal frameworks, political support and stability, and demand for and debt-paying ability of the project.
Based on a comprehensive review of the available literature, with a particular focus on CSFs in PPP projects and the briefing stage, an initial list of 218 success factors for PPP briefing was compiled. These factors were categorized into three stages of brief development and their corresponding activities and tasks, as discussed earlier. A detailed list is included in Appendix A. This extensive list of factors was reviewed to assess their similarity, detail, and importance, as well as to determine whether similar factors could be combined or grouped. The initial list was subsequently refined, condensed, and reorganized into 151 candidate factors distributed across seven main categories: (1) Procurement-Related Factors, (2) Stakeholder-related Factors, (3) Risk-related Factors, (4) Finance and Economic Factors, (5) Public Sector Capacity-related Factors, (6) Regulatory and Legal Factors, and (7) Social, Cultural, and Ethical Factors.
The following section outlines the research methodology used to develop the final CSF list for the questionnaire survey, providing detailed descriptions of the data collection process as well as the analysis and discussion of the results.
3. Research Methodology
The work presented in this paper is part of a comprehensive research project aimed at developing a framework for Critical Success Factors (CSFs) in Public-Private Partnership (PPP) briefing, with a specific focus on the UAE context. The goal of this framework is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of a brief development process for PPP projects in the UAE. This paper focuses specifically on the quantitative analysis of data gathered through a questionnaire survey to assess and rank the relative importance of the CSFs identified during the briefing stage of PPP projects in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Figure 1 illustrates the stages of the research methodology and the main processes involved in developing the above framework.
As discussed earlier, the initial list presented in Appendix A was refined, condensed, and reorganized into 151 candidate success factors categorized into seven main groups. Subsequently, five in-depth semi-structured ’elite interviews’ were conducted with PPP experts and key personnel from both the public and private sectors in the UAE. According to Marshall and Rossman [50], elite interviews focus on a specific group of interviewees who offer unique benefits due to the valuable insights and information they possess. However, accessing these individuals can be challenging due to their busy schedules and high-level responsibilities.
The interviewees were asked to evaluate the identified 151 candidate success factors for relevance and completeness, suggest any new factors specific to the UAE’s PPP environment, and highlight additional issues that could influence the success of the PPP briefing. Feedback from these interviews was used to refine and condense the list of candidate success factors, resulting in a final set of 123 CSFs that were categorized into seven distinct groups. These refined factors were further classified as either Critical Success Factors (CSFs) or Sub-Success Factors (SSFs). The refinement process involved evaluating the factors to determine their level of detail or importance, combining similar factors, and grouping or sub-categorizing others. Insights from the reviewed literature also informed potential high-level sorting and grouping of the factors.
As a result, the final CSFs Framework for PPP Briefing, specifically tailored to UAE PPP projects, was developed. This framework includes 38 CSFs and 103 SSFs organized into the seven categories included in Appendix B. The first two columns present the finalized list of CSFs and their SSFs grouped by category. For instance, in Procurement-Related Factors (coded as ‘A’), each CSF is labeled A1, A2, and so on, while their corresponding SSFs are labeled A11, A12, etc.
Following that, a questionnaire survey was designed, implemented, and analyzed as the primary focus of this study. The survey aimed to collect data from a large sample of PPP experts in the UAE, capturing their opinions and perceptions of the identified CSFs and associated SSFs and ranking the relative importance of these CSFs during the briefing stage of PPP projects in the UAE.
The Development and Implementation of the Questionnaire
A standardized questionnaire was developed to gather opinions and perceptions from PPP experts in the UAE regarding the identified Critical Success Factors (CSFs). The questionnaire included two types of questions: closed-ended questions with predefined answer options and scaled-response questions using a five-point Likert scale. It was divided into two parts: Part I collected general background information, while Part II focused on rating the CSFs and SSFs using the finalized framework, which included 38 CSFs and 103 SSFs organized into seven categories, as discussed earlier. The questionnaire also included a cover sheet detailing the study description and instructions, with privacy for responding organizations assured. Each section was clearly titled for easy navigation, and questions were presented in a table format. The questionnaire concluded with submission instructions and an optional section for respondents to request key findings. Questions were carefully worded, with multiple revisions made to ensure clarity, and instructional statements were provided to explain each scale point.
After creating the questionnaire, it was essential to validate its accuracy and clarity. This step ensured that the questionnaire reliably measured the intended information and that the questions were straightforward, thus allowing the respondents to provide clear and understandable answers. Five experienced academic researchers with expertise in questionnaire design reviewed the instrument and provided feedback that contributed to its improvement.
The questionnaire was then subjected to a pilot test with two PPP briefing process experts. During the pilot study, the participants completed the questionnaire and provided feedback on various aspects, including completion time, instruction clarity, question simplicity, wording clarity, and overall understanding. The questionnaire was formatted as an interactive PDF, making it easy for respondents to select rating options. It was distributed to professionals selected from a database of PPP experts, with an emphasis on those experienced in the UAE PPP market. The administration of the questionnaire spanned three months and resulted in 104 responses.
4. Data Analysis Process
The analysis of data obtained from the questionnaire responses consisted of two main phases. The first phase, explained in this section, focuses on two primary objectives: (1) examining the respondents’ profiles and (2) testing the reliability of the data using item-to-total correlation and Cronbach’s alpha statistical measures.
The second phase explores the value and contribution of the collected data in relation to the questionnaire’s objectives, which focuses on the importance and ranking of the thirty-eight (38) CSFs and their Sub-Success Factors (SSFs). It also addresses the purification and computation processes of the measuring instruments. This will be discussed in detail in Section 5.
4.1. Respondents and Their Categories: Descriptive Analysis
This section provides an overview of the respondents and their categories with the aim of describing the sample profile in the study. Frequency analysis was used to categorize participants based on their experience, market sector category, overall experience in PPP projects, and the PPP project sector.
4.1.1. Experience of Respondents
As mentioned earlier, this study aimed to obtain a sample of professionals with experience in various types of PPP projects within the UAE context, ensuring that the findings are generalizable to a broader industry. Table 1 shows the overall respondents’ professional experience. More than half of the respondents (53.8%) had more than 20 years of work experience. Additionally, 21.2% had between 11 and 15 years of experience, 13.5% had between 15 and 20 years, and 9.6% had between 6 and 10 years of experience. Finally, only a very few respondents (1.9%) had limited work experience (0–5 years).
4.1.2. Market Sector Category
Table 2 reveals that the majority of respondents (63.5%) came from private sector companies, while 36 respondents (34.6%) worked in the public sector.
4.1.3. Overall Experience in PPP Projects
As illustrated in Table 3, 44.2% of the respondents had between 0 and 5 years of experience, while more than half (45.8%) had over six years of experience in PPP projects. Only a small proportion of respondents (9.6%) had an extended work experience of 16 years or more in the market sector category.
4.1.4. Respondents’ Experience with PPP Project Type and PPP Briefing Process
The respondents had diverse experiences with various UAE PPP projects. The sample consisted of 104 responses covering eight different project types. Table 4 illustrates the distribution of respondents’ experiences by type of PPP project in the UAE. About 13.5% of the respondents had experience in educational projects, while only six respondents (5.8%) had experience in healthcare projects. Nearly one-quarter (23.1%) of the respondents had experience in the social housing sector and 19.2% had experience in transport projects. Additionally, 9.6% of the sample had expertise in environmental projects, while eight respondents (7.1%) had experience in both institutional and industrial projects. Finally, 13.5% (14 respondents) had experience with infrastructure PPP projects. The majority of respondents (66.3%) had experience with the PPP briefing process.
4.2. Data Preparation and Purification of Measures
According to [51], researchers must follow several steps after collecting data to obtain meaningful results during the analysis stage. This section discusses these steps in detail.
4.2.1. Data Preparation
Several steps were taken to prepare the data for analysis. First, the raw data were reviewed to identify and correct errors and omissions, ensuring that minimum data quality standards were met. Second, the study variables were coded into formats suitable for analysis using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), with each variable assigned a unique label to configure the software. Finally, the data were manually entered into SPSS after each questionnaire was checked for errors and omissions. These steps ensured that the data were ready for analysis.
4.2.2. Purification of Measures
After recording and entering the data, it is crucial to ensure that the measurements are reliable and valid. This is important for several reasons: it strengthens the research methodology, supports result triangulation, and provides a clearer understanding of the studied phenomena. In this study, validity and reliability were assessed using item-to-total correlation, which is considered the most common procedure among researchers to guarantee the reliability of a multi-item scale [52]. This method helps in deciding whether to retain or remove items based on their correlation with others in the same category, ensuring that they share a common core [53]. Items with an item-to-total correlation score of 0.30 or higher were retained as highly reliable [54]. Reliability estimation also considers the average correlation between items within a category, known as “internal consistency” [55]. The Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, a widely accepted reliability measure, was used for this purpose. This technique has been proven to be useful in estimating reliability in most research contexts. According to [55], a reliability score of 0.5 to 0.6 is considered sufficient. The following section discusses the process of computing reliability, which was applied to all measuring instruments across the seven categories previously identified.
4.2.3. Reliability Analysis Results
Reliability analysis involved calculating item-to-total correlations and implementing Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. All items showed a strong item-to-total correlation, exceeding the accepted threshold of 0.30. The reliability coefficient ranged from 0.756 to 0.956, which is significantly higher than the accepted level of 0.60 [55]. These findings confirm the reliability of the scales used in this study.
4.2.4. Content Validity
Content validity refers to the extent to which the measures used accurately capture the domain of properties or characteristics of the construct being studied [56,57].
A measure is considered to have content validity if there is general agreement among participants and researchers that the instrument’s items adequately cover all content domains of the variables being measured [55]. To ensure content validity, the researcher must carefully define the research problem, items to be scaled, and scale to be used. This logical process is somewhat intuitive and unique to each researcher [54]. However, before a measurement scale can be applied in empirical research, it must meet specific criteria [58], including ensuring content validity. This involves carefully defining what is to be measured, conducting a thorough literature review, and conducting interviews with the target population. Additionally, having experts review the scale is crucial for ensuring its accuracy. The scales should also be pretested, with open-ended questions included to identify any additional items that may need to be considered [58]. As discussed earlier, the CSFs listed in the final draft of the questionnaire survey were identified through a comprehensive review of relevant literature. Several interviews with PPP experts, along with a pilot study, further validated the CSFs and their content, ensuring the survey’s content validity.
5. Results and Discussion
This section covers the second phase of data analysis, building on the data validation and purification discussed earlier. SPSS software was used to analyze the data. The CSFs and their SSFs were measured using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5, where one means “not important” or “not at all”, 2 means “slightly important”, 3 means “neutral” or “moderately important”, 4 means “very important”, and five means “extremely important”. To calculate the means for CSFs, if a factor has SSFs, its mean is based on the average of the SSFs’ means from the respondents’ ratings. If a CSF has no SSFs, its mean is calculated directly from the respondents’ ratings. For more details, refer to Appendix B, which shows the Factors Ranking Analysis of CSFs and their SSFs.
5.1. Overall Critical Success Factors Ranking
Table 5 presents a comprehensive assessment and ranking of all thirty-eight Critical Success Factors (CSFs) within the context of PPP projects. Notably, the top 21 CSFs are ranked above 4, highlighting their significant importance. Among these factors are those related to the “Procurement” category, such as having a well-defined project brief with clear goals, objectives, and deliverables, as well as selecting an appropriate PPP model. In the “Stakeholder-related factors” category, identifying key stakeholders and understanding their needs, requirements, and interests are crucial. Addressing “Risk-related” factors is also essential, as is the proper identification and implementation of mitigation strategies for anticipated risks and threats. Government support is crucial, particularly for providing guarantees for political, legal, and regulatory risks that fall beyond the control of private investors. Additionally, flexibility in project design to adapt to changing market demands is crucial.
Similarly, the highlighted Finance and Economy-related factors involve assessing the business and economic viability of feasibility studies, as well as evaluating the financial capacity and reliability of the private sector. Public Sector Capacity-related factors include political support and stability, governmental assistance throughout the PPP project, and the government’s financial capacity to meet PPP financial obligations. Lastly, Regulatory and Legal-related factors focus on establishing clear authority and responsibility between the public and private sectors, gaining approval from relevant authorities for the governance model of the PPP venture, and ensuring effective regulatory and legal frameworks. Adherence to applicable laws, robust dispute resolution mechanisms, and alignment of the project scope with the public agency’s authorized mandate are also essential.
Furthermore, 16 factors earned rankings between 3.5 and 4, spanning several critical dimensions. Firstly, in the procurement-related category, the focus is on establishing a clear and precise process for shaping and overseeing the project brief. This includes allocating sufficient resources to the briefing process while allowing flexibility and adaptability.
Additionally, Stakeholder-related factors involve careful selection and empowerment of the project team, implementation of effective stakeholder management strategies, active engagement of user groups throughout the briefing process, and establishment of robust communication and coordination among stakeholders. Addressing potential stakeholder influence is also crucial in this category. Likewise, Risk-related factors emphasize the proper allocation and sharing of risks among project stakeholders, which is essential for mitigating potential challenges. The Finance and Economic Factors category underscores the importance of a favorable financial and economic environment to support the success of PPP projects. Furthermore, Public Sector Capacity-related factors highlight the need for qualified and experienced public staff to oversee the PPP briefing process. Effective government mechanisms for documentation and knowledge transfer further enhance project efficiency.
Lastly, Social, Cultural, and Ethical Factors cover various considerations, such as establishing acceptable tariff levels, incorporating socioeconomic aspects, addressing the cultural and ethical values of end users or user groups during brief development, and fostering a supportive work environment. Notably, only one factor—community participation, acceptance, and support—ranked between 3.5 and 3. For a detailed breakdown of these factor rankings within the seven categories and their corresponding CSFs and sub-factors, please refer to Appendix B.
5.2. One-Sample t-Test of Statistical Significance of All CSFs
A one-sample t-test was conducted to determine whether the observed means of the Critical Success Factors (shown in Table 5) were significantly different from the mid-point of 3.0. The results show that the differences were highly significant (p < 0.01), confirming that all the critical factors for the PPP briefing process were rated positively. The following sections analyze each of the seven categories in the developed CSF framework. The one-sample t-test results for the statistical significance of the PPP briefing’s CSFs are shown in detail in Appendix C.
5.3. Procurement-Related Factors
The ranking of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) in the Procurement category is illustrated in Table 6. The top-ranked factor had clear project goals, objectives, and deliverables in the project brief, with a score of 4.2423. This aligns with the idea proposed by Abdul-Aziz [59], who emphasized that clear goals, objectives, and deliverables are essential for a project’s success. It also supports Akintoye and Donnelly [29]’s view that the client group must specify output requirements in a way that the “special purpose vehicle” (SPV) can understand. Additionally, Yu et al. [24] It highlights the importance of understanding the client’s strategic goals for a successful briefing.
Key areas of focus include clear project goals and specifications, alignment with the client’s objectives, integration into planning processes, and effective management of the Expression of Interest (EOI) stage in brief development. As detailed in its SSFs, achieving clear project goals and deliverables requires clarity of the project objectives, proper output specifications, alignment with the client’s strategic objectives, integration with national and local planning, and effective management of the Expression of Interest (EOI) stage during brief development.
The second-ranked factor, with a score of 4.1346, is the appropriateness of the chosen PPP model. Since various PPP models exist, selecting the right one is crucial for optimizing results. This aligns with interview findings that emphasize the importance of endorsement by relevant authorities and selecting a model suited to the project’s type and scope.
The third and fourth factors, with scores of 3.8341 and 3.7548, respectively, focused on a clear and controlled briefing process, along with sufficient resource allocation. These findings align with Tang et al. [18], who highlighted the importance of the brief writer’s experience, adequate time, and process control as key Procurement-Related Factors in PPP briefing.
Finally, ‘flexibility of the brief and the management of change’ ranked last in this category, highlighting the importance of a well-established framework for formulating the brief. The briefing process should involve clear goals and objectives, strong public sector leadership, continuous monitoring and control, well-defined criteria for selecting options, and setting decision priorities with key stakeholders. Additionally, establishing a realistic timeline for completion and ensuring a clear and precise brief at the conclusion of the process are essential elements.
It is worth mentioning that the recent procurement regulations introduced by UAE Federal Law No. 12 of 2023 provide a constructive framework for implementing Public-Private Partnerships (PPP). These detailed regulations enhance transparency, accountability, and fairness in PPP projects by setting clear guidelines for proposal evaluation. By promoting structured processes, the law ensures consistency and guarantees that PPP projects are executed with clear expectations and rigorous oversight, ultimately leading to improved project outcomes. Regarding brief formulation and project requirements, the law empowers federal entities by assigning them responsibility for preparing project briefs and requirements in alignment with their strategic goals.
While the Ministry of Finance maintains oversight of the regulatory framework, federal entities ensure that the briefing process adheres to established guidelines and project standards. This includes setting clear goals, preparing technical and financial specifications, and identifying risk management strategies. Federal entities thus play a pivotal role in shaping project briefs to align with both public and private sector needs while considering national priorities and sector-specific requirements.
5.4. Stakeholder-Related Factors
The ranking of Stakeholder-related Factors from the respondents is presented in Table 7. ‘Identification of influential stakeholders’ ranked first with a score of 4.1731, which is an essential consideration in any government project. This was followed by “Identification of stakeholders’ needs, requirements, and interests” with a score of 4.0096. This aligns with the research by Kelly et al. [60], who emphasize the early identification of influential stakeholders. It also supports the arguments of Juaim and Hassanain [61] and Jing et al. [62], who highlighted the enriching role of stakeholders in the briefing process and the importance of their proper identification.
“Team selection and empowerment” secured the third position with a score of 3.9615, emphasizing the critical role of team quality in determining project outcomes. This finding echoes the research findings explained in [24,63,64], which highlights the importance of selecting experienced team members. Yu et al. [24] also underscore the value of empowering the stakeholder group in decision-making. Stakeholder management strategies ranked fourth in this category (3.8846), emphasizing the need to define stakeholder roles, devise a consultation plan, ensure that output specifications are realistic, and effectively address stakeholder conflicts and coalitions.
The fifth and sixth rankings go to “engaging user groups throughout the briefing process” (3.8526) and “stakeholder communication and coordination” (3.7418), where skilled project managers play a crucial role. The final aspect, “addressing stakeholder power and influence” (3.7115), aligns with research by Tang et al. [18], who highlight the importance of efficient stakeholder relationships in PPPs, emphasizing transparency and trust for success.
5.5. Risk-Related Factors
In the Risk-related factor category, Table 8 reveals the respondent rankings. “Proper identification of anticipated risks/threats” ranked first (4.2821), followed by “Mitigation/reduction strategy for anticipated risks/threats” (4.2404). These findings align with the research by Allan [38], which emphasizes the need for thorough risk identification and assessment. Additionally, they support the idea that PPP projects should incorporate a risk-transfer strategy, transferring risks to the private sector that is best equipped to manage them and retaining those better handled by the public sector as part of the project planning process [41]. To ensure a successful PPP briefing, it is essential to start early with a risk register, focus on partner-related and supply chain risks, establish a robust risk-mitigation plan, and recruit expert staff to assess the strategy.
“Proper analysis of anticipated PPP project risks” ranked third (4.1563), aligning with Ozdoganm and Birgonul [65], which emphasizes the importance of comprehensive risk assessment during the briefing stage. This involves estimating risk probabilities, quantifying consequences, calculating risk values, analyzing cash flows and financial risks, assessing transferable and retained risks, and conducting realistic long-term risk evaluations. Government guarantees for political, legal, and regulatory risks beyond the control of private investors ranked fourth (4.0962). Ozdoganm and Birgonul [65] also highlight the government’s pivotal role in ensuring the success of the PPP briefing by providing protection against these risks.
Fifth and sixth are “flexibility of the project design solution to meet possible future changes in market demand” (4.0192) and “proper risk allocation and sharing among stakeholders” (3.9904). In PPP projects involving diverse stakeholders, responsibilities are crucial, emphasizing the need for adaptable design solutions to address potential shifts in market demand while maintaining the project’s requirements.
5.6. Finance and Economic Factors
Table 9 shows the ranking order of finance- and economics-related factors from all respondents’ perspectives. “Business and economic viability of the feasibility study” claimed the top spot (4.0856), followed closely by “Financial capacity and reliability of the private sector” (4.0833). Amponsah [32] emphasized that comprehensive feasibility studies with strong financial and economic analyses help avoid negotiation and procurement issues. Many researchers agree on the importance of robust feasibility studies [8,10,11,15,32,47,53,66,67,68]. Similarly, Tang et al. [18] underscored the need for well-defined commercial arrangements in a project brief. As detailed in its SSFs, achieving the business and economic viability of the feasibility study requires key elements, including a robust PPP reference model, a reliable Public Sector Comparator (PSC), value-for-money (VfM) analysis, bankability assessment, market intelligence, and a practical project budget and procurement plan. Additionally, strong private sector finances, expertise in long-term lending within the financial sector, and cost-effective technical solutions are equally crucial.
However, the importance of the private sector’s financial capacity and reliability is clear. This reflects the sector’s strong financial standing, experience in making long-term lending decisions, and ability to provide cost-effective technical solutions, as highlighted in the CSF’s SSFs.
“Sound commercial and financial package/arrangements” ranked third (4.0692), aligning with findings from the Asian Development Bank [33], which emphasizes the critical role of project financing in PPP schemes. They argue that a robust financial market serves as an incentive for private sector involvement in efficient and mature markets. Similarly, research by Tang et al. [18] highlights the need for well-defined commercial arrangements, including contract duration, payment mechanisms, and financial agreements, in the project brief. The key elements, as detailed in the SSFs, include flexible price regulations, a feasible payment structure, profit transfer options, appropriate tariff levels, and an adjustment formula for interest and exchange rates for investors.
Financial and economic climate’ ranked last in this category (3.9375), aligning with the views of Harrington [69] and UNESCAP [45], who emphasized that a stable economic environment attracts foreign investment in PPP projects and mitigates the risk of project failure caused by macroeconomic shocks. Therefore, as outlined in the SSFs, a stable economic climate, effective financial regulations, appropriate financial systems for PPPs, a robust financial market, access to long-term financing, limited competition from other projects, stable currencies, and low fixed interest rates are all critical for establishing a favorable financial and economic climate.
5.7. Public Sector Capacity-Related Factors
As shown in Table 10, in the Public Sector Capacity category, “Political support and stability” (4.25) ranked first, emphasizing the importance of creating a conducive environment for successful project execution, especially in PPPs, by providing both political backing and a stable environment for long-term planning and investment. According to research by Alteneiji et al. [49], political support and stability ranked highest in the literature review. They asserted that it is one of the most critical elements of economic development, representing a consensus among all local studies in the UAE. Similarly, Ong and Lenard [70] noted that political stability, government support, and incentives are crucial for privately financed projects, particularly in developing countries, where political instability is a major concern for build–own–operate–transfer (BOOT) projects. Given concession periods of 20 to 40 years, long-term political stability is essential. This aligns with the research by Dulaimi et al. [19], which highlights the importance of political support and stability in the UAE PPP project environment, as stakeholders require political leadership to intervene, understand the perceived risks of such projects, and ensure sustained political support for providing infrastructure services. Together, political support and stability create a conducive environment for successful project execution, especially in PPPs, by providing both the backing and the secure environment needed for long-term planning and investment.
“Governmental assistance during PPP project execution” ranked second (4.1538), emphasizing the need for support from line agencies and local governments during PPP projects, consistent with Dulaimi et al. [19] findings. “Government financial capacity to support PPP financial requirements” ranked third (4.0192), supporting the findings of [69], which emphasize the importance of integrating PPP financial needs into the government’s budget process.
Fourth place (3.9359) went to “Qualified and experienced public staff to manage the PPP briefing process”. This finding is supported by [45,61,64,69,71], who highlight the value of competent staff with PPP management qualifications and experience, emphasizing the need for adequately qualified public staff during the briefing process.
Lastly, “Effective government mechanisms for documentation and lessons learned” ranked lowest in this category (3.5705), underscoring the importance of accessible PPP documentation, best practices in the public domain, a shared e-documentation system for stakeholders, and a public database of feedback and lessons learned from completed PPP projects for successful PPP briefing.
5.8. Regulatory and Legal Factors
In the Regulatory and Legal Factors category, Table 11 reveals respondent rankings. “Clear authority and responsibility between public and private sectors” secured the top position (4.4231), emphasizing the need for a clear allocation of authority and responsibilities for each partner. This aligns with research by UNESCAP [45] and Chan et al. [72], who also stress the importance of clearly defined roles. The “Approved governance model by relevant authorities for the PPP venture” ranked second (4.2692), highlighting the importance of obtaining proper approvals from relevant authorities. Multiple authors, including [5,10,11,15,46,66,68], have highlighted the necessity of having the required laws and legal structures in place for PPP processes. “Availability of effective regulatory and legal frameworks for PPP” ranked third (4.2154), supporting Othman [23] and Yu et al. [24]’s recommendations for alignment with updated policies and guidelines. This underscores the importance of a robust, transparent, and stable regulatory framework that includes clear land planning laws, transparent procurement systems, and statutory control measures.
Fourth place went to “Adherence to applicable and up-to-date legal and regulatory frameworks” (4.1538), aligning with research by Tang et al. [18] and Yu et al. [64], who stress the need for understanding statutory and lease control measures throughout the PPP project for successful briefing. This emphasizes the importance of following applicable design and operation standards while keeping up with updated regulatory frameworks. Also ranked fourth (4.1538) is “Proper dispute resolution mechanisms”, underscoring the need for effective conflict and dispute resolution processes, as noted by Chan et al. [72]. Lastly, “Project scope matching the authorized mandate of the public agency” ranked last, highlighting the importance of aligning the project scope with the public agency’s authorized mandate.
It is worth noting that the recently introduced Federal Law adds rigor to the regulatory and legal framework governing PPPs in the UAE. The law clarifies the authority and responsibilities between the public and private sectors, aligning with the top-ranked Critical Success Factor (CSF) in the regulatory category. Additionally, the requirement for government approval of PPP governance models and the emphasis on transparency in procurement strengthen legal compliance and project accountability. This legislative shift ensures that PPP projects align with national strategic objectives and financial sustainability. By formalizing procedures such as project selection, budgetary alignment, and risk mitigation, the decree reduces uncertainty in the PPP process and enhances long-term project viability. Ultimately, the law provides a crucial foundation for the successful application of CSFs, reinforcing the importance of adhering to legal frameworks, transparent project evaluations, and risk-sharing mechanisms, as discussed in this paper.
5.9. Social, Cultural, and Ethical Factors
Table 12 shows the ranking order of the factors related to the social, cultural, and ethical categories from the respondents’ perspective. “Acceptable tariff level” secured the top spot (3.7692), as expected, emphasizing the importance of tariffs that align with community acceptance and considering the social and economic impact of PPP projects. Close behind, “Consideration of socioeconomic aspects” ranked second (3.7308), highlighting the need for all parties to recognize the social and economic implications of PPP projects.
Ranking third (3.6538) is “Consideration of cultural and ethical values of end users/user groups”. Research by Othman [23] and Yu et al. [24] emphasizes the importance of managing the cultural and ethical values of end users and user groups involved in decision-making. Furthermore, the work environment during brief development ranked fourth (3.5423), highlighting the significance of rewards, long-term job commitment, openness, trust, stakeholder commitment, and honesty.
Finally, “Community participation, acceptance, and support” ranked last (3.3558), underscoring the community’s ability to initiate, coordinate, and support PPP projects during development. This reflects the importance of community involvement, suggestions, and understanding during project brief development, as noted by UNESCAP [45].
5.10. Overall Discussion of All Categories
The survey results shown in Table 13 reveal a clear hierarchy of importance for the success of PPP project briefings in the UAE context. At the top are Regulatory and Legal Factors, followed by Finance and Economic Factors, Risk-related Factors, Public Sector Capacity, Procurement, Stakeholder Factors, and, finally, Social, Cultural, and Ethical Factors.
The prominence of Regulatory and Legal Success Factors, ranked as the top category in this study, aligns with the findings of Tang et al. [73], who explored procurement-related success factor frameworks for PPP briefings in Hong Kong. Their research underscores the pivotal role of procurement decisions made during the early briefing stages, establishing that clear, well-defined regulatory and legal frameworks are foundational to the success of PPP projects.
These findings emphasize the critical importance of strong financial and economic foundations for PPP success, which is consistent with global research [8,10,11,15,32,47,53,66,67,68]. The top-ranked factor, “Business and economic viability of the feasibility study,” underscores the universal need for comprehensive planning and rigorous financial analysis, aligning with Amponsah’s [32] and Tang et al.’s [18] findings on the importance of feasibility studies and clear commercial arrangements. Similarly, the private sector’s “Financial capacity and reliability” highlights its essential role in providing financial stability, long-term lending expertise, and cost-effective solutions. Furthermore, The focus on “Sound commercial and financial arrangements” mirrors global best practices, as emphasized by the Asian Development Bank [33] and Tang et al. [18], highlighting the role of structured agreements in fostering private sector confidence. The “Financial and economic climate” factor reflects the ongoing global challenge of ensuring macroeconomic stability, aligning with Harrington [69] and UNESCAP [45] emphasis on stable environments to attract investment and reduce risks.
The universal importance of comprehensive risk management was emphasized to ensure the success of PPP projects. “Proper identification of anticipated risks” and “Mitigation strategies” ranked highest, reflecting widely accepted best practices in identifying and transferring risks to stakeholders best equipped to manage them, consistent with Allan [38] and Li and Akintoye [41]. Similarly, “Proper risk analysis” aligns with Ozdoganm and Birgonul’s [65] emphasis on quantifying risks and evaluating financial impacts. The role of government guarantees in addressing uncontrollable risks reinforces the critical role of the public sector in fostering investor confidence globally. “Flexibility in design solution” and “proper Risk allocation” highlight the challenges in balancing adaptability with stakeholder responsibilities.
The analysis underscores the global importance of political stability and support for PPP success. This reflects its critical role in fostering long-term planning and investment, aligning with Alteneiji et al. [49] and Ong and Lenard [70], who emphasized its significance for economic development and risk mitigation, particularly in long-term concession projects. Further, Dulaimi et al. [19] highlighted its pivotal role in sustaining infrastructure projects within the UAE context. Other key success factors, such as governmental assistance and financial capacity, highlight the need for operational and financial integration within public frameworks, as noted by [19,69]. Meanwhile, qualified public staff emphasizes the value of expertise in managing PPPs, aligning with findings from research by [45,61,64,69,71]. These findings align with international standards while showcasing the UAE’s emphasis on political and institutional stability, reflecting its adaptability in addressing both global and regional PPP challenges.
In the “Procurement-Related Factors” category, the findings highlight the universal importance of clarity, alignment, and strategic planning in the procurement phase of PPP projects. Clear project goals, objectives, and deliverables emerged as the most critical factor, reaffirming the global consensus that precise and aligned project briefs are essential for success and aligning with the findings of research by Abdul-Aziz [59], Akintoye and Donnelly [29], and Yu et al. [24] Furthermore, the focus on appropriate PPP model selection and controlled briefing processes further emphasizes the need for tailored approaches that effectively balance stakeholder needs with the project scope.
The findings related to stakeholders underscore their critical role in ensuring the success of PPP projects, aligning with global research, which highlights the importance of early identification, engagement, and empowerment. The top-ranked factor in this category, “Identification of influential stakeholders”, emphasizes its foundational role, consistent with the studies of Kelly et al. [60], Juaim and Hassanain [61], and Jing et al. [62]. This also complements findings in the Social, Cultural, and Ethical Factors category, where understanding stakeholder needs and cultural differences emerged as important considerations. Similarly, team selection and empowerment align with the findings of research by [24,63,64], where team quality and the value of empowerment were emphasized as vital for achieving project goals. Together, these findings reaffirm global best practices while highlighting the importance of integrating stakeholder management strategies across all stages of PPP development.
The findings in the Social, Cultural, and Ethical Factors category align with global research, emphasizing the importance of community alignment, cultural considerations, and ethical governance in PPP success. Key priorities, such as acceptable tariffs and socioeconomic impacts, reflect the universal need for equity and inclusivity, resonating with the studies by Othman [23] and Yu et al. [24]. The lower ranking of community participation highlights both a persistent challenge and an opportunity to strengthen engagement strategies, aligning with UNESCAP’s [45] recommendations for deeper stakeholder involvement to enhance project acceptance and success.
6. Conclusions
This paper presents a comprehensive quantitative analysis to assess the relative importance of Critical Success Factors (CSFs) in the development of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) project briefs in the UAE. Using a structured questionnaire, responses from experienced PPP professionals were analyzsed to evaluate 38 CSFs and 103 Sub-Success Factors (SSFs) across seven key categories: Regulatory and Legal Factors, Finance and Economic Factors, Risk-related Factors, Public Sector Capacity, Procurement-Related Factors, Stakeholder Factors, and Social, Cultural, and Ethical Factors. The first part of the paper focuses on preliminary data analysis, including a descriptive examination of respondent profiles and response distribution alongside initial interpretations. The reliability test, conducted to ensure the validity of the measurements using item-to-total correlation and Cronbach’s alpha values, confirmed the data’s suitability for further analysis. This analysis revealed the following conclusions:
- ▪
- The importance and ranking of 38 CSFs and 103 Sub-Success Factors (SSFs) across seven main categories were established.
- ▪
- This study reinforces the importance of a holistic approach in managing the development of PPP briefs, incorporating Critical Success Factors (CSFs) across legal, financial, and social dimensions to achieve long-term success in the UAE’s rapidly evolving construction landscape.
- ▪
- The findings revealed that Regulatory and Legal Factors ranked highest, emphasizing the importance of clear legal frameworks and well-defined roles between the public and private sectors to ensure project success. Finance and Economic Factors and Risk-related Factors followed closely, highlighting the significance of financial stability, sound commercial arrangements, and effective risk management strategies. Public Sector Capacity, including political support and governmental assistance, also emerged as a critical element, underscoring the role of qualified public staff and sustained political backing for PPP projects. Procurement-related and Stakeholder-related factors were also recognized as vital, particularly the need for clear project objectives, stakeholder engagement, and effective communication throughout the briefing process. Social, Cultural, and Ethical Factors, though ranked last, remain crucial for addressing community involvement, cultural values, and the socioeconomic impact of PPP projects.
- ▪
- The importance of the Critical Success Factors was clearly indicated in the UAE Federal Law No. 12 of 2023 regarding Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) in the UAE, which provides a robust legal foundation for effective collaboration between the public and private sectors. The law specifically emphasized the risk-sharing mechanisms and accountability measures in the PPP process, directly reinforcing the CSFs identified in this paper.
- ▪
- From a practical perspective, the developed CSF framework is a valuable tool for practitioners and decision-makers in PPP brief development in the UAE. Aligning the framework with UAE Federal Law No. 12 of 2023 enables project teams to establish clear legal, financial, and operational parameters during the briefing phase. Comprehensive stakeholder engagement, as emphasized in this study, can mitigate risks and align diverse project participants. Applying the framework during feasibility studies and procurement planning facilitates actionable and well-defined project briefs, ultimately improving the project outcomes.
- ▪
- Although the research findings provide a comprehensive framework of CSFs for brief development tailored to the UAE’s unique PPP environment, they primarily focus on PPP projects in general. Future studies could explore the relative importance of CSFs across specific PPP sectors in the UAE, particularly as more PPP projects are anticipated in the future pipeline, including those in the transport, education, healthcare, and other sectors.
- ▪
- This study has certain limitations that present opportunities for future research. The sample size focuses on the UAE context, which currently has a limited number of PPP projects and experts compared to more mature markets. Future research could address this limitation by expanding the sample to include a larger pool of experts actively involved in developing various PPP initiatives across the UAE.
In conclusion, the research described in this paper highlights the critical importance of identifying and implementing Critical Success Factors (CSFs) during the briefing stage of future PPP projects to ensure their successful execution in the UAE. By focusing on the early stages of the project lifecycle, this study emphasizes the role of CSFs in establishing a strong foundation for project development, aligning stakeholder objectives, and mitigating potential risks. The findings demonstrate that a comprehensive and well-structured briefing process tailored to the UAE’s unique PPP environment is essential for achieving efficiency, stakeholder satisfaction, and long-term project viability. These insights offer valuable guidance for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers aiming to optimize the briefing stage for PPP projects in the UAE and beyond.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization: R.A.S., A.A. and S.A.; Data curation: R.A.S., A.A. and S.A.; Formal analysis: R.A.S. and A.A.; Investigation, R.A.S.; Methodology: R.A.S. and A.A.; Resources: R.A.S. and A.A.; Supervision: A.A. and S.A.; Validation: A.A.; Visualization: R.A.S. and A.A.; Writing—original draft: R.A.S. and A.A.; Writing—review and editing: R.A.S., A.A. and S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, and further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding authors.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support provided by Ajman University for the publication fees of this paper.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Appendix A. Initial Activity-Based Success Factors List for PPP Briefing
| Briefing Phases | Briefing Activity | Briefing Tasks | Briefing Phases |
| Strategic Phase (Strategic Project Brief) | 1. The Needs Analysis |
| |
| |||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| 2. Project Parameters and Scoping |
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| |||
|
| ||
| 3. Option Appraisal |
|
| |
|
| ||
| |||
| |||
| Feasibility Phase (Feasibility Project Brief) | 4. Project due diligence |
|
|
|
| ||
| |||
|
| ||
| 5. Risk Management |
|
| |
| 6. Financial Assessment |
|
| |
| |||
|
| ||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| Procurement Phase (Project Brief) | 7. Consultations with relevantStakeholders |
|
|
| |||
|
| ||
| 8. Project Development |
|
| |
| |||
|
| ||
|
| ||
|
| ||
| 9. Confirming Market Interest and Capacity |
|
| |
| 10. Request for Proposals |
|
| |
|
| ||
| Other CSFs Related to the Whole Briefing Process in PPP Projects | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
Appendix B. Ranking Analysis of CSFs and Their SSFs: Mean and Level of Importance of All Factors
| Item Code | Item | SSFs Mean | SSFs Rank | CSFs Mean | CSFs Rank | Categories Mean | Categories Rank |
| A | Procuremen- Related Factors | 4.0115 | 5 | ||||
| A1 | Clear the project’s goal, objectives, and deliverables in the brief. | 4.2423 | 1 | ||||
| A11 | Clarity of the project goal and objectives set by the client/owner | 4.4231 | 1 | ||||
| A12 | Proper project output- specifications developed to meet the client’s/owner’s service needs and standards | 4.3077 | 2 | ||||
| A13 | Demonstration of the project’s alignment to the client’s/owner’s strategic objectives | 4.1731 | 4 | ||||
| A14 | Integration of the PPP project with the national and local planning processes | 4.0962 | 5 | ||||
| A15 | Adequate preparation and management of the Expression of Interest (EOI) stage of the PPP project in the brief’s development | 4.2115 | 3 | ||||
| A2 | Clear and precise process for formulation and control of the brief | 3.8341 | 3 | ||||
| A21 | A framework for the brief’s formulation to be agreed by key partners | 3.9038 | 3 | ||||
| A22 | A briefing process with clear goals and objectives | 3.9038 | 3 | ||||
| A23 | Lead given by the public sector and its continuous control and monitoring of the briefing process | 3.7885 | 6 | ||||
| A24 | Clear and applicable criteria for the selection of options | 3.8462 | 5 | ||||
| A25 | Establishment of priority levels for decisions agreed on by the key parties during briefing | 3.7885 | 6 | ||||
| A26 | Use/application of the Value Management (VM) approach in the development of the brief | 3.5192 | 8 | ||||
| A27 | A realistic timetable set for the completion of the brief | 3.9231 | 2 | ||||
| A28 | Availability of a clear and precise brief at the end of the briefing stage | 4.0000 | 1 | ||||
| A3 | Appropriateness of the selected PPP model | -- | -- | 4.1346 | 2 | ||
| A4 | Adequate resources allocated to the briefing process | 3.7548 | 4 | ||||
| A41 | Allocation of a separate service fee for developing the brief | 3.7115 | 4 | ||||
| A42 | Sufficient time to be allowed for the briefing | 3.8077 | 1 | ||||
| A43 | Sufficient human resources to be allowed for the briefing | 3.7692 | 2 | ||||
| A44 | The recruitment of an experienced writer of briefs | 3.7308 | 3 | ||||
| A5 | Flexibility of the brief and the management of change | 3.6538 | 5 | ||||
| A51 | Flexibility in the development of the brief to allow for possible changes | 3.6346 | 2 | ||||
| A52 | The brief should describe the possible changes to the client organization resulting from the PPP project | 3.6731 | 1 | ||||
| B | Stakeholder-Related Factors | 3.9835 | 6 | ||||
| B1 | Identification of the influential stakeholders | 4.1731 | 1 | ||||
| B11 | Identifying influential stakeholders properly | 4.2692 | 1 | ||||
| B12 | Identifying key user-groups | 4.0769 | 2 | ||||
| B2 | Addressing stakeholders’ possible power and influence | 3.7115 | 7 | ||||
| B21 | Assessing stakeholders’ behavior | 3.7885 | 1 | ||||
| B22 | Predicting the influence of stakeholders accurately | 3.6923 | 2 | ||||
| B23 | Assessing the attributes (power, urgency, and proximity) of stakeholders | 3.6538 | 3 | ||||
| B3 | Identification of the stakeholders’ needs, requirements, and interests | 4.0096 | 2 | ||||
| B31 | Identifying end-user/user-groups requirements in the project brief | 4.1538 | 1 | ||||
| B32 | Identifying the client/owner’s requirements in the project brief | 4.1346 | 2 | ||||
| B33 | Understanding the areas of stakeholders’ interests and their constraints | 3.9615 | 3 | ||||
| B34 | Balancing the needs/requirements of different stakeholders | 3.7885 | 4 | ||||
| B4 | Adequate engagement of user groups throughout the briefing process | 3.8526 | 5 | ||||
| B41 | Representation of both the user groups and client groups in the development of the brief | 3.9423 | 1 | ||||
| B42 | Adequately engaging the user groups throughout the briefing and design stages | 3.9615 | 2 | ||||
| B43 | Proper use of the user-groups values and knowledge | 3.6538 | 3 | ||||
| B5 | Stakeholder management strategies | 3.8846 | 4 | ||||
| B51 | Identifying appropriate decision-making strategies | 3.9038 | 3 | ||||
| B52 | Clarifying the roles and responsibilities of project stakeholders | 4.0769 | 1 | ||||
| B53 | Managing stakeholders with corporate social responsibilities (economic, legal, environmental, and ethical) | 3.7308 | 6 | ||||
| B54 | Publishing a proper consultation plan for user groups and stakeholders | 3.8077 | 5 | ||||
| B55 | Strictly controlling and managing the client/user groups to avoid output specifications becoming a wish list (wish-list syndrome) | 3.9615 | 2 | ||||
| B56 | Proper analysis and compromise in conflicts and coalitions between stakeholders | 3.8269 | 4 | ||||
| B6 | Proper communication and coordination between stakeholders during the brief development | 3.7418 | 6 | ||||
| B61 | Good facilitation of briefing should be given to stakeholders | 3.7308 | 4 | ||||
| B62 | Good facilitation in the briefing for stakeholders | 4.0385 | 1 | ||||
| B63 | Communication with and engaging stakeholders properly and frequently | 3.9808 | 2 | ||||
| B64 | Using different methods to document and effectively communicate the brief | 3.5962 | 6 | ||||
| B65 | Proper methods of e-based communications among stakeholders | 3.4423 | 7 | ||||
| B66 | Facilitating the sharing of knowledge among the stakeholders | 3.6346 | 5 | ||||
| B67 | Using face-to-face contact as a communication method in critical decision stages of the brief | 3.7692 | 3 | ||||
| B7 | Team selection and empowerment | 3.9615 | 3 | ||||
| B71 | Empowering the stakeholder group as a team to make decisions in the briefing process | 3.8654 | 2 | ||||
| B72 | Selecting team members with relevant experience to develop an effective brief | 4.0577 | 1 | ||||
| C | Risk-Related Factors | 4.1571 | 3 | ||||
| C1 | Proper identification of anticipated risks/threats to the PPP project | 4.2821 | 1 | ||||
| C11 | Commencement of a risk register/log early in the briefing stage | 4.3654 | 2 | ||||
| C12 | Identifying partner-related risks in the PPP projects | 4.4038 | 1 | ||||
| C13 | Identifying supply chain risks in the PPP projects | 4.0769 | 3 | ||||
| C2 | Proper analysis and assessment of anticipated risks/threats to the PPP project | 4.1563 | 3 | ||||
| C21 | Proper estimation of anticipated risk probabilities | 4.1154 | 6 | ||||
| C22 | Proper quantification of the consequences of risks | 4.2115 | 2 | ||||
| C23 | Proper calculation of risk value | 4.1923 | 3 | ||||
| C24 | Thorough analysis of cash flows and financial risks | 4.3269 | 1 | ||||
| C25 | Proper calculation of transferable and retained risks | 4.1538 | 5 | ||||
| C26 | Examining the impact of risks/benefits on government options | 4.1731 | 4 | ||||
| C27 | Realistic long-term risk assessment | 4.0962 | 7 | ||||
| C28 | Special risk assessment | 3.9808 | 8 | ||||
| C3 | Proper risk allocation and sharing among project stakeholders | 3.9904 | 6 | ||||
| C31 | Determining the desired risk allocation | 3.9615 | 2 | ||||
| C32 | Appropriate risk allocation in the following areas: concession agreements, guarantees/support/comfort letters, loan agreements, operation agreements, insurance agreements, design and construct contracts | 4.0192 | 1 | ||||
| C4 | Proper mitigation/reduction strategy for anticipated risks/threats to the PPP project | 4.2404 | 2 | ||||
| C41 | Setting an effective management plan for risk mitigation/reduction | 4.1538 | 2 | ||||
| C42 | Recruiting expert staff to assess the risk-mitigation strategy | 4.3269 | 1 | ||||
| C5 | Government guarantees for political/legal/regulatory risks beyond the control of private investors. | -- | -- | 4.0962 | 4 | ||
| C6 | Flexibility of the project design solution to meet possible future changes in market demand | -- | -- | 4.0192 | 5 | ||
| D | Finance and Economic Related Factors | 4.1587 | 2 | ||||
| D1 | Favorable financial and economic climate | 3.9375 | 4 | ||||
| D11 | Stable economic climate | 4.0577 | 4 | ||||
| D12 | Effective financial regulatory regime in place | 4.0769 | 3 | ||||
| D13 | Availability of proper financial systems for PPP arrangements | 4.3077 | 1 | ||||
| D14 | Available financial market | 4.0192 | 5 | ||||
| D15 | Availability of long-term finance | 4.2308 | 2 | ||||
| D16 | Limited competition from other projects | 3.2500 | 8 | ||||
| D17 | Stable currencies of securitization (debts and equity finance) | 3.9231 | 6 | ||||
| D18 | Financing with fixed low interest rates | 3.6346 | 7 | ||||
| D2 | Business and economic viability of the feasibility study | 4.0865 | 1 | ||||
| D21 | Constructing a robust PPP reference model | 4.0577 | 3 | ||||
| D22 | A reliable Public Sector Comparator (PSC) | 3.8846 | 6 | ||||
| D23 | A value-for-money (VfM) analysis | 4.3077 | 1 | ||||
| D24 | Proper assessment of bankability | 4.0577 | 3 | ||||
| D25 | Market intelligence study: Investigation of private sector capability and capacity to deliver the required services | 4.0577 | 3 | ||||
| D26 | Practical budget and procurement program of the project | 4.1538 | 2 | ||||
| D3 | Sound commercial and financial package/arrangements | 4.0692 | 3 | ||||
| D31 | Flexible price regulations sufficient to adjust to major cost changes | 4.0000 | 4 | ||||
| D32 | The setting up of a feasible payment structure and mechanism | 4.0962 | 2 | ||||
| D33 | The ability to transfer profits out of the country | 4.0577 | 3 | ||||
| D34 | Appropriate tariff level(s) and suitable adjustment formula for investors | 4.1923 | 1 | ||||
| D35 | The ability to deal with fluctuations in interest/exchange rates | 4.0000 | 4 | ||||
| D4 | Financial capacity and reliability of the private sector | 4.0833 | 2 | ||||
| D41 | Good private sector financial standing | 4.2115 | 1 | ||||
| D42 | The financial sector experienced in assessing long-term lending decisions | 4.1538 | 2 | ||||
| D43 | Cost-effective technical solution | 3.8846 | 3 | ||||
| E | Public Sector Capacity-Related Factors | 4.0423 | 4 | ||||
| E1 | Political support and stability refer to Sufficient political backing and a stable environment for long-term project success. | -- | -- | 4.2500 | 1 | ||
| E2 | Qualified and experienced public staff to manage the PPP briefing process | 3.9359 | 4 | ||||
| E21 | Adequate public staff qualifications and experience in the briefing process | 4.0192 | 1 | ||||
| E22 | Adequate technical capacity in relevant government agencies for tackling/undertaking similar PPP projects | 3.9231 | 2 | ||||
| E23 | Adequate PPP resources/facilities and expertise training | 3.8654 | 3 | ||||
| E3 | Governmental assistance during the PPP project undertaking | -- | -- | 4.1538 | 2 | ||
| E4 | Government financial capacity to support PPP financial requirements | -- | -- | 4.0192 | 3 | ||
| E5 | Effective government mechanisms for documentation and lessons learned. | 3.5705 | 5 | ||||
| E51 | Availability of PPP documentation and best practices in the public domain | 3.5577 | 2 | ||||
| E52 | Proper e-documentation system among all stakeholders for the brief’s development and all the decisions made | 3.5000 | 3 | ||||
| E53 | Availability of feedback and lessons learned from PPP-completed projects as a database in the public domain | 3.6538 | 1 | ||||
| F | Regulatory and Legal-Related Factors | 4.2147 | 1 | ||||
| F1 | Availability of effective regulatory and legal frameworks for PPP | 4.2154 | 3 | ||||
| F11 | Robust, transparent, and stable regulatory framework for PPP procurement | 4.2885 | 2 | ||||
| F12 | Clear land planning laws and regulations | 4.0962 | 5 | ||||
| F13 | Fairness and transparency of the government’s procurement system | 4.1346 | 4 | ||||
| F14 | Clear ownership issues | 4.3654 | 1 | ||||
| F15 | Clear statutory control measures | 4.1923 | 3 | ||||
| F2 | Approved governance model by relevant authorities for the PPP venture | -- | -- | 4.2692 | 2 | ||
| F3 | Project scope to match the authorized mandate of the public agency | -- | -- | 4.1154 | 6 | ||
| F4 | Adherence to applicable and up-to-date legal and regulatory frameworks | 4.1538 | 4 | ||||
| F41 | Adherence to applicable design and operation codes and standards for the type of project | 4.1154 | 2 | ||||
| F42 | Updated regulatory framework in place | 4.1923 | 1 | ||||
| F5 | Clear authority and responsibility between the public and private sector | -- | -- | 4.4231 | 1 | ||
| F6 | Proper dispute resolution mechanism | -- | -- | 4.1538 | 5 | ||
| G | Social, Cultural, and Ethical Related Factors | 3.6038 | 7 | ||||
| G1 | Community participation, acceptance, and support | 3.3558 | 5 | ||||
| G11 | Ability of the community to suggest PPP projects, coordinate and participate with the government during the development of the project brief | 3.2885 | 2 | ||||
| G12 | Community acceptance, supportiveness, and understanding were obtained during the development of the project’s brief | 3.4231 | 1 | ||||
| G2 | Work environment during the brief development | 3.5423 | 4 | ||||
| G21 | Rewards and incentives to encourage the PPP staff | 3.3462 | 5 | ||||
| G22 | Long-term job commitment to increase the productivity of project staff | 3.3846 | 4 | ||||
| G23 | Openness and trust between stakeholders | 3.5769 | 3 | ||||
| G24 | Commitment of all participants in the briefing process | 3.6346 | 2 | ||||
| G25 | Honesty among stakeholders | 3.7692 | 1 | ||||
| G3 | Consideration of cultural and ethical values of the end users/user group during the brief’s development | -- | -- | 3.6538 | 3 | ||
| G4 | Acceptable tariff level | -- | -- | 3.7692 | 1 | ||
| G5 | Consideration of socioeconomic aspects | -- | -- | 3.7308 | 2 |
Appendix C. One-Sample t-Test of the Statistical Significance of the PPP Briefing’s CSFs
| 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference | ||||||||
| ID | CSF | t | df | Sig. (2-Tailed) | Mean Difference | Lower | Upper | |
| A1 | Clear the project’s goal, objectives, and deliverables in the brief | 17.223 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.24231 | 1.0993 | 1.3854 | |
| A2 | Clear and precise process for formulation and control of the brief | 10.825 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.83413 | 0.6813 | 0.9870 | |
| A3 | Appropriateness of the selected PPP model | 12.235 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.13462 | 0.9507 | 1.3185 | |
| A4 | Adequate resources allocated to the briefing process | 8.418 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.75481 | 0.5770 | 0.9326 | |
| A5 | Flexibility of the brief and the management of change | 7.112 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.65385 | 0.4715 | 0.8362 | |
| B1 | Identification of the influential stakeholders | 15.560 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.17308 | 1.0236 | 1.3226 | |
| B2 | Addressing stakeholders’ possible power and influence | 8.143 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.71154 | 0.5382 | 0.8848 | |
| B3 | Identification of the stakeholders’ needs, requirements, and interests | 13.491 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.00962 | 0.8612 | 1.1580 | |
| B4 | Adequate engagement of user groups throughout the briefing process | 11.250 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.85256 | 0.7023 | 1.0029 | |
| B5 | Stakeholder management strategies | 10.312 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.88462 | 0.7145 | 1.0548 | |
| B6 | Proper communication and coordination between stakeholders during the brief development | 10.808 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.74176 | 0.6056 | 0.8779 | |
| B7 | Team selection and empowerment | 12.864 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.96154 | 0.8133 | 1.1098 | |
| C1 | Proper identification of anticipated risks/threats to the PPP project | 18.449 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.28205 | 1.1442 | 1.4199 | |
| C2 | Proper analysis and assessment of anticipated risks/threats to the PPP project | 13.206 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.15625 | 0.9826 | 1.3299 | |
| C3 | Proper risk allocation and sharing among project stakeholders | 9.078 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.99038 | 0.7740 | 1.2067 | |
| C4 | Proper mitigation/reduction strategy for anticipated risks/threats to the PPP project | 14.874 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.24038 | 1.0750 | 1.4058 | |
| C5 | Government guarantees for political/legal/regulatory risks beyond the control of private investors | 9.293 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.09615 | 0.8622 | 1.3301 | |
| C6 | Flexibility of the project design solution to meet possible future changes in market demand | 9.114 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.01923 | 0.7974 | 1.2410 | |
| D1 | Favorable financial and economic climate | 11.443 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.93750 | 0.7750 | 1.1000 | |
| D2 | Business and economic viability of the feasibility study | 13.207 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.08654 | 0.9234 | 1.2497 | |
| D3 | Sound commercial and financial package/arrangements | 15.923 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.06923 | 0.9361 | 1.2024 | |
| D4 | Financial capacity and reliability of the private sector | 12.142 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.08333 | 0.9064 | 1.2603 | |
| E1 | Political support and stability | 14.510 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.25000 | 1.0791 | 1.4209 | |
| E2 | Qualified and experienced public staff to manage the PPP briefing process | 12.645 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.93590 | 0.7891 | 1.0827 | |
| E3 | Governmental assistance during the PPP project undertaking | 14.321 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.15385 | 0.9941 | 1.3136 | |
| E4 | Government financial capacity to support PPP financial requirements | 8.981 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.01923 | 0.7942 | 1.2443 | |
| E5 | Effective government mechanisms for documentation and lessons learned. | 5.587 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.57051 | 0.3680 | 0.7730 | |
| F1 | Availability of effective regulatory and legal frameworks for PPP | 13.955 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.21538 | 1.0427 | 1.3881 | |
| F2 | Approved governance model by relevant authorities for the PPP venture | 15.432 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.26923 | 1.1061 | 1.4323 | |
| F3 | Project scope to match the authorized mandate of the public agency | 11.625 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.11538 | 0.9251 | 1.3057 | |
| F4 | Adherence to applicable and up-to-date legal and regulatory frameworks | 14.022 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.15385 | 0.9906 | 1.3170 | |
| F5 | Clear authority and responsibility between the public and private sector | 17.682 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.42308 | 1.2635 | 1.5827 | |
| F6 | Proper dispute resolution mechanism | 10.493 | 103 | 0.000 | 1.15385 | 0.9358 | 1.3719 | |
| G1 | Community participation, acceptance, and support | 3.076 | 103 | 0.003 | 0.35577 | 0.1264 | 0.5852 | |
| G2 | Work environment during the brief development | 4.979 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.54231 | 0.3263 | 0.7583 | |
| G3 | Consideration of cultural and ethical values of the end users/user group during the brief’s development | 6.651 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.65385 | 0.4589 | 0.8488 | |
| G4 | Acceptable tariff level | 7.080 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.76923 | 0.5537 | 0.9847 | |
| G5 | Consideration of socioeconomic aspects | 7.262 | 103 | 0.000 | 0.73077 | 0.5312 | 0.9303 | |
References
- Mahat, N.A.A.; Adnan, H. The influence of client brief and change order in construction project. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2018, 117, 012009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vahabi, A.; Nasirzadeh, F.; Mills, A. Impact of project briefing clarity on construction project performance. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 22, 2504–2516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Saadi, R.; Abdou, A. Exploring Briefing Processes across Mature Markets of Public–Private Partnership (PPP) Projects: Comparative Insights and Important Considerations. Buildings 2024, 14, 2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Osei-Kyei, R.; Chan, A.P.C.; Arshad Ali, J.; Ernest Effah, A. Critical success criteria for public-private partnership projects: International experts’ opinion. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2017, 21, 87–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiong, R.L.K. CSFs in Competitive Tendering and Negotiation Model for BOT Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 1996, 122, 205–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, L. Effective and Efficient Briefing in Public Private Partnership Projects in the Construction Industry. Ph.D. Thesis, Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Hong Kong), Hong Kong, China, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Rockart, J.F. Chief executives define their own data needs. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1979, 57, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Qiao, L.; Wang, S.Q.; Tiong, R.L.K.; Chan, T.-S. Framework for Critical Success Factors of BOT Projects in China. J. Proj. Financ. 2001, 7, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jefferies, M.; Gameson, R.; Rowlinson, S. Critical success factors of the BOOT Procurement System: Reflections from the Stadium Australia case study. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2002, 9, 352–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, X.Q. Critical Success Factors for Public–Private Partnerships in Infrastructure Development. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2005, 131, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, B.; Akintoye, A.; Edwards, P.J.; Hardcastle, C. Critical success factors for PPP/PFI projects in the UK construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2005, 23, 459–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guerrero, A.; Lara-Galera, A.; Alcaraz Carrillo de Albornoz, V.; Arévalo Sarrate, C. Determinant Features to Reduce the Infrastructure Gap in Saudi Arabia Under a Public–Private Partnership Scheme. Buildings 2024, 14, 699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Canadian Council for Public Private Partnerships. Public-Private Partnerships: A Guide for Municipalities; The Canadian Council for Public Private Partnerships: Toronto, ON, Canada, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Tang, L.; Shen, G.Q. Finance-Related Critical Success Factors for the Briefing of PPP Projects in Construction. In Proceedings of the ICCREM 2013: Construction and Operation in the Context of Sustainability, Karlsruhe, Germany, 10–11 October 2013; pp. 427–437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hardcastle, C.; Edwards, P.J.; Akintoye, A.; Li, B. Critical success factors for PPP/PFI projects in the UK construction industry: A factor analysis approach. In Public Private Partnerships: Opportunities and Challenges; Centre for Infrastructure and Construction Industry Development, University of Hong Kong: Hong Kong, China, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Chan, A.P.C.; Lam, P.; Chan, D.W.M.; Cheung, E.; Ke, Y. Critical Success Factors for PPPs in Infrastructure Developments: Chinese Perspective. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2010, 136, 484–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cisneros-Herrera, D.; Lara-Galera, A.; Alcaraz Carrillo de Albornoz, V.; Muñoz-Medina, B. Driving Peru’s Road Infrastructure: An Analysis of Public–Private Partnerships, Challenges, and Critical Success Factors. Buildings 2024, 14, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, L.; Shen, Q.; Skitmore, M.; Cheng, E.W.L. Ranked Critical Factors in PPP Briefing. J. Manag. Eng. 2012, 29, 164–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dulaimi, M.F.; Alhashemi, M.; Ling, F.Y.Y.; Kumaraswamy, M. The execution of public-private partnership projects in the UAE. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2010, 28, 393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kwak, Y.; Young Hoon, K.; YingYi, C.; Ibbs, C.W. Towards a comprehensive understanding of public private partnerships for infrastructure development. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2009, 51, 51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Saadi, R.; Abdou, A. Factors critical for the success of public–private partnerships in UAE infrastructure projects: Experts’ perception. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2016, 16, 234–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Helou, E.A. UAE Introduces New Framework to Boost Public-Private Partnership Projects. Economy Middle East Summit 2024 Wed 8 May. Available online: https://economymiddleeast.com/news/uae-introduces-new-framework-to-boost-public-private-partnership-projects/ (accessed on 18 October 2024).
- Othman, A.A.E. Value and Risk Management for Dynamic Brief Development in Construction: Value and Risk Management in Construction; LAP Lambert Academic Publishing, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, A.T.W.; Shen, Q.; Kelly, J.; Hunter, K. An empirical study of the variables affecting construction project briefing/architectural programming. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2007, 25, 198–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, J.; Lin, G.; Yu, A.T.W.; Shen, Q. A Value Management Approach to Strategic Briefing: An Exploratory Study. Archit. Eng. Des. Manag. 2006, 2, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kamara, J.M.; Anumba, C.J.; Evbuomwan, N.F.O. Capturing Client Requirements in Construction Projects; Thomas Telford: London, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Kelly, J.; Duerk, D. Construction Project Briefing/Architectural Programming. In Best Value in Construction; Kelly, J., Morledge, R., Wilkinson, S., Eds.; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002; pp. 38–58. [Google Scholar]
- Construction Industry Board CIB. Briefing the Team: A Guide to Better Briefing for Clients; Thomas Telford: London, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Akintoye, A.; Donnelly, J. Client briefing in public private partnership projects. In Proceedings of the International Symposium of CIB Working Commissions-Knowledge Construction, Singapore, 22–24 October 2003; Department of Building, University of Singapore: Singapore, 2003; pp. 785–797. [Google Scholar]
- Zeegers, A.; Ang, G. Client involvement in performance based briefing in Public Private Partnerships procurement and the use of ICT: Dutch best practice. In Proceedings of the CIB World Congress, Cape Town, South Africa, 14–17 May 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ng, S.T.; Wong, Y.M.W.; Wong, J.M.W. Factors influencing the success of PPP at feasibility stage—A tripartite comparison study in Hong Kong. Habitat Int. 2012, 36, 423–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amponsah, C.T. Public-Private Partnerships: Critical Success Factors for Procurements of Capital Projects; Capella University, United States: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 2010; p. 220. [Google Scholar]
- Asian Development Bank. Public-Private Partnership Handbook; Asian Development Bank: Mandaluyong, Philippines, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, A.R.W.; Shen, Q.; Kelly, J.; Hunter, K. Application of value management in project briefing. Facilities 2005, 23, 330–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirkham, R. Ferry and Brandon’s Cost Planning of Buildings; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, A.; Shen, Q.; Kelly, J.; Hunter, K. Comparative Study of the Variables in Construction Project Briefing/Architectural Programming. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2008, 134, 122–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, A.R.W. A Value Management Framework for Systematic Identification and Precise Representation of Client Requirements in the Briefing Process. Ph.D. Thesis, Hong Kong Polytechnic University (Hong Kong): Hong Kong, China, 2007; p. 562. [Google Scholar]
- Allan, J.R.; Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy. Public-Private Partnerships: A Review of Literature and Practice; Saskatchewan Institute of Public Policy: Regina, Sask, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- UNIDO. Guidelines for Infrastructure Development Through Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) Projects; United Nations Industrial Development Organization: Vienna, Austria, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Seader, D.L. The United States Experience with Outsourcing, Privatization, and Public-Private Partnerships; The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships: Washington, DC, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Li, B.; Akintoye, A. An overview of public–private partnership. In Public-Private Partnerships Managing Risks and Opportunities; Akintoye, A., Beck, M., Hardcastle, C., Eds.; Blackwell Science: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2003; pp. 3–24. [Google Scholar]
- Gunnigan, L. Increasing Effectiveness of Public Private Partnerships in the Irish Construction Industry. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Salford (United Kingdom), Salford, UK, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Li, B.; Akintoye, A.; Edwards, P.J.; Hardcastle, C. The allocation of risk in PPP/PFI construction projects in the UK. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2005, 23, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shen, L.-Y.; Platten, A.; Deng, X.P. Role of public private partnerships to manage risks in public sector projects in Hong Kong. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2006, 24, 587–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- UNESCAP. PPP-Readiness Self-Assessment; United Nations: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Pongsiri, N. Regulation and public-private partnerships. Int. J. Public Sect. Manag. 2002, 15, 487–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdou, A.; Al Zarooni, S. Preliminary Critical Success Factors of Public Private Partnership (PPP) in UAE Public Healthcare Projects. In Proceedings of the Six International Conferences on Construction in the 21st Century (CITC-VI) “Construction Challenges in the New Decade”, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 5–7 July 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Almarri, K.; Abu-Hijleh, B. Critical Success Factors for Public Private Partnerships in the UAE Construction Industry- A Comparative Analysis Between the UAE and the UK. J. Eng. Proj. Prod. Manag. 2017, 7, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khalifa, A.; Alkass, S.; Dabous, S.A. Critical success factors for public–private partnerships in affordable housing in the United Arab Emirates. Int. J. Hous. Mark. Anal. 2020, 13, 753–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, C.; Rossman, G.B. Designing Qualitative Research; SAGE Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Frankfort-Nachmias, C.; Nachmias, D. Research Methods in the Social Sciences; Arnold: Calaveras, CA, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- May, T. Social research: Issues, Methods and Process, 2nd ed.; Open University Press: Buckingham, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Tiong, R.L.K. BOT projects: Risks and securities. Constr. Manag. Econ. 1990, 8, 315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, D.R.; Emory, W. Business Research Methods; Irwin: Boston, MA, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Nunnally, J.C. Psychometric Theory; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Ahire, S.L.; Golhar, D.Y.; Waller, M.A. Development and Validation of TQM Implementation Constructs. Decis. Sci. 1996, 27, 23–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Das, A.; Paul, H.; Swierczek, F.W. Developing and validating total quality management (TQM) constructs in the context of Thailand’s manufacturing industry. Benchmarking Int. J. 2008, 15, 52–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDaniel, C.D.; Gates, R.H. Contemporary Marketing Research; West Publishing Company: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1996. [Google Scholar]
- Abdul-Aziz, A.-R. Unraveling of BOT Scheme: Malaysia’s Indah Water Konsortium. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2001, 127, 457–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kelly, J.; Male, S.; Graham, D. Value Management of Construction Projects; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Juaim, M.N.; Hassanain, M.A. Assessment of factors influencing the development and implementation of the architectural program. Struct. Surv. 2011, 29, 320–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jing, Y.; Shen, Q.; Manfong, H.; Drew, D.S.; Chan, A.P.C. Exploring Critical Success Factors for Stakeholder Management in Construction Projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2009, 15, 337–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, L.; Shen, Q. Factors affecting effectiveness and efficiency of analyzing stakeholders’ needs at the briefing stage of public private partnership projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2013, 31, 513–521. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, A.T.W.; Shen, Q.; Kelly, J.; Hunter, K. Investigation of critical success factors in construction project briefing by way of content analysis. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 1178–1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozdoganm, I.D.; Birgonul, M.T. A decision support framework for project sponsors in the planning stage of build-operate-transfer (BOT) projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2000, 18, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, E.; Chan, A.P.C.; Kajewski, S. Factors contributing to successful public private partnership projects: Comparing Hong Kong with Australia and the United Kingdom. J. Facil. Manag. 2012, 10, 45–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, E.; Chan, A.P.C.; Lam, P.T.I.; Chan, D.W.M.; Ke, Y. A comparative study of critical success factors for public private partnerships (PPP) between Mainland China and the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. Facilities 2012, 30, 647–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ismail, S. Critical success factors of public private partnership (PPP) implementation in Malaysia. Asia-Pac. J. Bus. Adm. 2013, 5, 6–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Harrington, D.R. Two-stage adoption of different types of pollution prevention (P2) activities. Resour. Energy Econ. 2012, 34, 349–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ong, H.C.; Lenard, D. Can Private Finance Be Applied in the Provision of Housing. In Proceedings of the FIG XXII International Congress, Washington, DC, USA, 19–26 April 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, M. Abu Dhabi to Award Private Road Project: Strabag Consortium is First-Ranked Bidder for the Mafraq-Ghweifat Highway Scheme. MEED Middle East Econ. Dig. 2010, 54, 9. [Google Scholar]
- Chan, A.; Chan, D.; Chiang, Y.; Tang, B.; Chan, E.; Ho, K. Exploring Critical Success Factors for Partnering in Construction Projects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2004, 130, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, L.; Shen, G.Q.; Skitmore, M.; Wang, H. Procurement-Related Critical Factors for Briefing in Public-Private Partnership Projects: Case of Hong Kong. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04014096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- South Africa National Treasury. Module 4: PPP Feasibility Study. In National Treasury PPP Practice Note Number 05 of 2004; South Africa National Treasury: Pretoria, South Africa, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Victorian Government. Partnerships Victoria: Guidance Material; Department of Treasury and Finance: Melbourne, Australia, 2001. [Google Scholar]
- Rashed, M.A.; Alam, M.M.; Ibrahim, Y. Central Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Development Facility for Enhancing Government Obligation and Efficiency in PPP Project. Int. J. Inf. Technol. Proj. Manag. 2017, 8, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mahalingam, A.; Devkar, G.; Kalidindi, S.N. A Comparative Analysis of Public- Private Partnership (PPP) Coordination Agencies in India. Public Work Manag. Policy 2011, 16, 341–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zwemmer, M.; Otter, A.D. Engaging Users in Briefing and Design: A Strategic Framework. In Proceedings of the CIB Joint Conference: Performance and Knowledge Management, Helsinki, Finland, 3–4 June 2008; pp. 405–416. [Google Scholar]
- Foster Infrastructure Pty Ltd. Best Practice in Design of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) for Social Infrastructure, Particularly in Health Care and Education; APEC Business Advisory Council: Singapore, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Ann, T.W.; Chan, E.H.W.; Chan, D.W.M.; Lam, P.T.I.; Tang, P.W.L. Management of client requirements for design and build projects in the construction industry of Hong Kong. Facilities 2010, 28, 657–672. [Google Scholar]
- Liu, J.; Love, P.E.D.; Carey, B.; Smith, J.; Regan, M.E. Ex-Ante Evaluation of Public-Private Partnerships: Macroeconomic Analysis. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2015, 21, 04014038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olojede, B.O.; Opawole, A.; Jagboro, G.O. Capability development measures adopted by public sector organizations in PPP projects delivery in developing countries. J. Public Procure. 2020, 20, 145–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ismail, K.; Takim, R.; Nawawi, A.H. The Evaluation Criteria of Value for Money (VFM) of Public Private Partnership (PPP) Bids. Available online: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-evaluation-criteria-of-Value-for-Money-(VFM)-of-Ismail-Takim/1d5602be61c27ccab41dab1909fbfb162d0c3265 (accessed on 16 December 2024).
- Cheung, E.; Chan, A.P.C.; Kajewski, S.L. Suitability of procuring large public works by PPP in Hong Kong. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2010, 17, 292–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cheung, E.; Chan, A.P.C. Evaluation Model for Assessing the Suitability of Public-Private Partnership Projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2011, 27, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tafesse, T. Public Private Partnership in Development: Lessons in Devising Legal and Institutional Framework from South Korea. Public Policy Adm. Res. 2014, 4, 50–57. [Google Scholar]
- Meidutė, I.; Paliulis, N.K. Feasibility study of public-private partnership. Int. J. Strateg. Prop. Manag. 2011, 15, 257–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, S.; Tiong, R.L.K. Tariff adjustment frameworks for privately financed infrastructure projects. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2003, 21, 409–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Babatunde, S.O.; Adeniyi, O.; Awodele, O. Investigation into the causes of delay in land acquisition for PPP projects in developing countries. J. Eng. Des. Technol. 2017, 15, 552–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Selim, A.M.; Yousef, P.H.A.; Hagag, M.R. Risk Allocation for Infrastructure Projects by (PPPs)—(Under Environmental Management and Risk Assessment Mechanisms). SSRN Electron. J. 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanakoudis, V.; Papotis, A.; Sanopoulos, A.; Gkoutzios, V. Crucial parameters for PPP projects successful planning and implementation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2007, I, 167–184. [Google Scholar]
- European Investment Bank. The EPEC PPP Guide; European Investment Bank: Luxembourg, 2014; Available online: https://www.eib.org/en/publications/epec-guide-to-public-private-partnerships (accessed on 16 December 2024).
- Yang, R.J.; Wang, Y.; Jin, X.-H. Stakeholders’ Attributes, Behaviors, and Decision-Making Strategies in Construction Projects: Importance and Correlations in Practice. Proj. Manag. J. 2014, 45, 74–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolawole, A.M. Effective Project Preparation Process: A Key Factor to a Successful PPP Infrastructure Development. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Invent. 2016, 5, 2319–6726. Available online: www.ijesi.org (accessed on 16 December 2024).
- Kumaraswamy, M.M.; Rahman, M.M.; Palaneeswaran, E.; Ugwu, O.O.; Anvuur, A.M.; Yogeswaran, K. Multidisciplinary and multi-functional teams in PPP procurement and delivery. In Proceedings of the CIB W092 Procurement Systems Symposium on Building across Borders, Newcastle, Australia, 23–26 September 2007. [Google Scholar]
- South Africa National Treasury. Module 3: PPP Inception. In National Treasury PPP Practice Note Number 05 of 2004; South Africa National Treasury: Pretoria, South Africa, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X. Criteria for Selecting the Private-Sector Partner in Public–Private Partnerships. J. Constr. Eng. Manag.-ASCE 2005, 131, 631–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dolla, T.; Laishram, B. Prequalification in municipal solid waste management public-private partnerships of India. Constr. Econ. Build. 2019, 19, 6431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
The Research Methodology for Developing the Critical Success Factors Framework for PPP Briefing with Special Reference to the UAE context.
Figure 1.
The Research Methodology for Developing the Critical Success Factors Framework for PPP Briefing with Special Reference to the UAE context.
Table 1.
Overall professional experience.
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–5 Years | 2 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 1.9 |
| 6–10 Years | 10 | 9.6 | 9.6 | 11.5 |
| 11–15 Years | 22 | 21.2 | 21.2 | 32.7 |
| 16–20 Years | 14 | 13.5 | 13.5 | 46.2 |
| More Than 20 Years | 56 | 53.8 | 53.8 | 100.0 |
| Total | 104 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Table 2.
Market sector category.
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | Frequency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public | 36 | 34.6 | 34.6 | 34.6 |
| Private | 66 | 63.5 | 63.5 | 98.1 |
| Other | 2 | 1.9 | 1.9 | 100.0 |
| Total | 104 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Table 3.
Overall professional experience in PPP projects.
| Frequency | Percent | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–5 Years | 46 | 44.2 | 44.2 | 44.2 |
| 6–10 Years | 32 | 30.8 | 30.8 | 75.0 |
| 11–15 Years | 16 | 15.4 | 15.4 | 90.4 |
| 16–20 Years | 4 | 3.8 | 3.8 | 94.2 |
| More Than 20 Years | 6 | 5.8 | 5.8 | 100.0 |
| Total | 104 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Table 4.
Distribution of respondents’ experience by type of PPP project in the UAE.
| Type of PPP Project | Frequency | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Educational | 14 | 13.5 |
| Healthcare | 6 | 5.8 |
| Social Housing | 24 | 23.1 |
| Transport project | 20 | 19.2 |
| Environmental | 10 | 9.6 |
| Institutional project | 8 | 7.7 |
| Infrastructure | 14 | 13.5 |
| Industrial | 8 | 7.7 |
| Total | 104 | 100.0 |
Table 5.
Ranking of All Critical Success Factors for the Brief Development of PPP Projects.
| ID | Critical Success Factors (CSFs) | Group | Mean * | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| F5 | Clear authority and responsibility between the public and private sector | Regulatory and legal | 4.4231 | 1 |
| C1 | Proper identification of anticipated risks/threats to the PPP project | Risk | 4.2821 | 2 |
| F2 | Approved governance model by relevant authorities for the PPP venture | Regulatory and legal | 4.2692 | 3 |
| E1 | Political support and stability: refer to Sufficient political backing and a stable environment for long-term project success. | Public sector capacity | 4.2500 | 4 |
| A1 | Clear the project’s goal, objectives, and deliverables in the brief | Procurement | 4.2423 | 5 |
| C4 | Proper mitigation/reduction strategy for anticipated risks/threats to the PPP project | Risk | 4.2404 | 6 |
| F1 | Availability of effective regulatory and legal frameworks for PPP | Regulatory and legal | 4.2154 | 7 |
| B1 | Identification of the influential stakeholders | Stakeholder | 4.1731 | 8 |
| C2 | Proper analysis and assessment of anticipated risks/threats to the PPP project | Risk | 4.1563 | 9 |
| E3 | Governmental assistance during the PPP project undertaking | Public sector capacity | 4.1538 | 10 |
| F4 | Adherence to applicable and up-to-date legal and regulatory frameworks | Regulatory and legal | 4.1538 | 10 |
| F6 | Proper dispute resolution mechanism | Regulatory and legal | 4.1538 | 10 |
| A3 | Appropriateness of the selected PPP model | Procurement related | 4.1346 | 13 |
| F3 | Project scope to match the authorized mandate of the public agency | Regulatory and legal | 4.1154 | 14 |
| C5 | Government guarantees for political/legal/regulatory risks beyond the control of private investors | Risk | 4.0962 | 15 |
| D2 | Business and economic viability of the feasibility study | Finance and Economy | 4.0865 | 16 |
| D4 | Financial capacity and reliability of the private sector | Finance and Economy | 4.0833 | 17 |
| D3 | Sound commercial and financial package/arrangements | Finance and Economy | 4.0692 | 18 |
| C6 | Flexibility of the project design solution to meet possible future changes in market demand | Risk | 4.0192 | 19 |
| E4 | Government financial capacity to support PPP financial requirements | Public sector capacity | 4.0192 | 20 |
| B3 | Identification of the stakeholders’ needs, requirements, and interests | Stakeholder | 4.0096 | 21 |
| C3 | Proper risk allocation and sharing among project stakeholders | Risk | 3.9904 | 22 |
| B7 | Team selection and empowerment | Stakeholder | 3.9615 | 23 |
| D1 | Favorable financial and economic climate | Finance and economic | 3.9375 | 24 |
| E2 | Qualified and experienced public staff to manage the PPP briefing process | Public sector capacity | 3.9359 | 25 |
| B5 | Stakeholder management strategies | Stakeholder | 3.8846 | 26 |
| B4 | Adequate engagement of user groups throughout the briefing process | Stakeholder | 3.8526 | 27 |
| A2 | Clear and precise process for formulation and control of the brief | Procurement | 3.8341 | 28 |
| G4 | Acceptable tariff level | Social, cultural, and ethical | 3.7692 | 29 |
| A4 | Adequate resources allocated to the briefing process | Procurement | 3.7548 | 30 |
| B6 | Proper communication and coordination between stakeholders during the brief development | Stakeholder | 3.7418 | 31 |
| G5 | Consideration of socioeconomic aspects | Social, cultural, and ethical | 3.7308 | 32 |
| B2 | Addressing stakeholders’ possible power and influence | Stakeholder | 3.7115 | 33 |
| A5 | Flexibility of the brief and the management of change | Procurement | 3.6538 | 34 |
| G3 | Consideration of cultural and ethical values of the end users/user group during the brief’s development | Social, cultural, and ethical | 3.6538 | 35 |
| E5 | Effective government mechanisms for documentation and lessons learned | Public sector capacity | 3.5705 | 36 |
| G2 | Work environment during the brief development | Social, cultural, and ethical factors | 3.5423 | 37 |
| G1 | Community participation, acceptance, and support | Social, cultural, and ethical | 3.3558 | 38 |
* Mean is based on a five-point Likert scale.
Table 6.
Ranking of procurement-related factors.
| One-Sample Statistics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSFs | N | Mean | Rank | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean |
| A1 | 104 | 4.2423 | 1 | 0.73560 | 0.07213 |
| A3 | 104 | 4.1346 | 2 | 0.94569 | 0.09273 |
| A2 | 104 | 3.8341 | 3 | 0.78584 | 0.07706 |
| A4 | 104 | 3.7548 | 4 | 0.91441 | 0.08967 |
| A5 | 104 | 3.6538 | 5 | 0.93756 | 0.09194 |
Table 7.
Ranking of stakeholder-related factors.
| One-Sample Statistics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSFs | N | Mean | Rank | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean |
| B1 | 104 | 4.1731 | 1 | 0.76884 | 0.07539 |
| B3 | 104 | 4.0096 | 2 | 0.76317 | 0.07484 |
| B7 | 104 | 3.9615 | 3 | 0.76225 | 0.07475 |
| B5 | 104 | 3.8846 | 4 | 0.87488 | 0.08579 |
| B4 | 104 | 3.8526 | 5 | 0.77282 | 0.07578 |
| B6 | 104 | 3.7418 | 6 | 0.69988 | 0.06863 |
| B2 | 104 | 3.7115 | 7 | 0.89111 | 0.08738 |
Table 8.
Ranking of Risk-related factors.
| One-Sample Statistics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSFs | N | Mean | Rank | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean |
| C1 | 104 | 4.2821 | 1 | 0.70866 | 0.06949 |
| C4 | 104 | 4.2404 | 2 | 0.85042 | 0.08339 |
| C2 | 104 | 4.1563 | 3 | 0.89289 | 0.08756 |
| C5 | 104 | 4.0962 | 4 | 1.20290 | 0.11795 |
| C6 | 104 | 4.0192 | 5 | 1.14044 | 0.11183 |
| C3 | 104 | 3.9904 | 6 | 1.11255 | 0.10909 |
Table 9.
Ranking of finance and economic factors.
| One-Sample Statistics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSFs | N | Mean | Rank | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean |
| D2 | 104 | 4.0865 | 1 | 0.83897 | 0.08227 |
| D4 | 104 | 4.0833 | 2 | 0.90991 | 0.08922 |
| D3 | 104 | 4.0692 | 3 | 0.68480 | 0.06715 |
| D1 | 104 | 3.9375 | 4 | 0.83554 | 0.08193 |
Table 10.
Public Sector capacity-related factors.
| One-Sample Statistics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSFs | N | Mean | Rank | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean |
| E1 | 104 | 4.2500 | 1 | 0.87855 | 0.08615 |
| E3 | 104 | 4.1538 | 2 | 0.82166 | 0.08057 |
| E4 | 104 | 4.0192 | 3 | 1.15734 | 0.11349 |
| E2 | 104 | 3.9359 | 4 | 0.75481 | 0.07402 |
| E5 | 104 | 3.5705 | 5 | 1.04140 | 0.10212 |
Table 11.
Ranking of regulatory and legal factors.
| One-Sample Statistics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSFs | N | Mean | Rank | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean |
| F5 | 104 | 4.4231 | 1 | 0.82075 | 0.08048 |
| F2 | 104 | 4.2692 | 2 | 0.83876 | 0.08225 |
| F1 | 104 | 4.2154 | 3 | 0.88819 | 0.08709 |
| F4 | 104 | 4.1538 | 4 | 0.83920 | 0.08229 |
| F6 | 104 | 4.1538 | 5 | 1.12145 | 0.10997 |
| F3 | 104 | 4.1154 | 6 | 0.97848 | 0.09595 |
Table 12.
Ranking of social, cultural, and ethical factors.
| One-Sample Statistics | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CSFs | N | Mean | Rank | Std. Deviation | Std. Error Mean |
| G4 | 104 | 3.7692 | 1 | 1.10805 | 0.10865 |
| G5 | 104 | 3.7308 | 2 | 1.02617 | 0.10062 |
| G3 | 104 | 3.6538 | 3 | 1.00261 | 0.09831 |
| G2 | 104 | 3.5423 | 4 | 1.11082 | 0.10892 |
| G1 | 104 | 3.3558 | 5 | 1.17967 | 0.11568 |
Table 13.
Ranking of categories overall.
| ID | Category | Mean | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|
| F | Regulatory and Legal Factors | 4.2147 | 1 |
| D | Finance and Economic Factors | 4.1587 | 2 |
| C | Risk-Related Factors | 4.1571 | 3 |
| E | Public Sector Capacity-related Factors | 4.0423 | 4 |
| A | Procurement-Related Factors | 4.0115 | 5 |
| B | Stakeholder-Related Factors | 3.9835 | 6 |
| G | Social, Cultural, and Ethical Factors | 3.6038 | 7 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Al Saadi, R.; Abdou, A.; Alkass, S. Quantitative Analysis of Critical Success Factors in the Development of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Project Briefs in the United Arab Emirates. Buildings 2024, 14, 4067. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14124067
AMA Style
Al Saadi R, Abdou A, Alkass S. Quantitative Analysis of Critical Success Factors in the Development of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Project Briefs in the United Arab Emirates. Buildings. 2024; 14(12):4067. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14124067
Chicago/Turabian StyleAl Saadi, Rauda, Alaa Abdou, and Sabah Alkass. 2024. "Quantitative Analysis of Critical Success Factors in the Development of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Project Briefs in the United Arab Emirates" Buildings 14, no. 12: 4067. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14124067
APA StyleAl Saadi, R., Abdou, A., & Alkass, S. (2024). Quantitative Analysis of Critical Success Factors in the Development of Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Project Briefs in the United Arab Emirates. Buildings, 14(12), 4067. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14124067
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.