Methodology for developing capability maturity levels for PPP

stakeholder organisations using critical success factors

Abstract
Purpose- The success of any public-private partnership (PPP) project is largely dependent on
the country’s maturity on critical success factors (CSFs) that made PPP projects successful.
Thus, the identification of metrics and standards for measuring the maturity of stakeholder
organisations on CSFs for PPP projects implementation remain a challenge. Therefore, the
purpose of this study is to use CSFs to develop a process maturity and determine the current
maturity levels of stakeholder organisations in PPP projects implementation in Nigeria.
Design/methodology/approach- The study adopted literature review and six PPP project
case studies including interviews in each case study and expert forum. The outcome of a
comprehensive literature review provides a total list of fourteen CSFs that made PPP projects
successful in Nigeria. These CSFs were employed for capability maturity levels definition
ranging from level 1(Ad hoc) to level 5(Optimizing) in line with Capability Maturity Model
(CMM) concept. Quantitative assessment was considered as a support tool for making an
overall assessment of both the public and private organisations current capability maturity
levels and for comparison approach.
Findings- A capability enhancement framework for stakeholder organisations in PPP project
was developed. This framework was employed in assessing the current capability maturity
levels of stakeholder organisations involved in PPP projects in Nigeria. Using this
framework, it was found that public sector organisations were positioned between maturity
level 1 and maturity level 2 (out of 5 maturity levels) on CSFs applicable to them. While
most private sector organisations were placed in maturity level 2 on CSFs associated with
them.
Practical implication: The results emanated from this study provided both the theoretical
and practical implications. The theoretical implication provides new insights into the
usefulness of CSFs in PPP projects and indicates that merely identifying possible CSFs for
PPP projects are not sufficient. The practical implication shows that the framework
developed in this study had provided the benchmark for the identification of methodical
approach, and standard to process improvement in PPP infrastructure projects, which can be
replicated in both the developed and developing countries. Thus, the framework could be
used to benchmark future studies.
Originality/value- The framework would provide a useful guide and roadmaps for
improvement by indicating ‘what’ needs to be done by stakeholder organisations involved in
PPP projects in achieving higher capability maturity levels on identified CSFs for PPP
projects in Nigeria and developing countries at large.
Keywords: Critical success factors, capability maturity model, PPP projects, organisations,
stakeholders, Nigeria.
Paper type Research paper

Introduction
Governments in many countries ranging from mature economies to emerging market
economies have found partnerships with the private sector as an attractive alternative to
increasing and improve the supply of public infrastructure facilities. In line with global
trends, both the federal and state governments of Nigeria are ameliorating the key
infrastructure challenges through the involvement of the private sector in infrastructure
development via PPPs. This has led to over 51 infrastructure projects undertaken through
PPPs between 1990 and 2009 (Vetiva, 2011). In 2013 and 2014, about 66 PPP infrastructure
projects were in the pipeline (Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission, 2014). At
present, the number of PPP infrastructure projects undertaken in Nigeria are of increase
ranging from airport, seaports, roads, rails, power and energy, markets complex development,
university hostel development, housing, commercial offices among others. Therefore, in a
globalizing world there is a considerable interest in identifying critical success factors (CSFs)
that made PPP projects successful (see Qiao et al., 2001; Jefferies et al., 2002; Zhang, 2005;
Li et al., 2005; Cheung et al., 2012; Babatunde et al., 2012; Dada and Oladokun, 2012;
Famakin et al., 2012; Babatunde et al., 2015) among others.

Bullen and Rockart (1981) argued that the potential application and usefulness of the CSFs
concept generated considerable interest in industry, as CSFs seemed to be an aid to
management to strategize, plan, manage, monitor and achieve organisational goals. This is
affirmed by many researchers. For instance, Ram and Corkindale (2014) asserted that the
births of CSFs have introduced a new organisational approach for helping to achieve
performance goals and competitiveness. The CSFs concept promised a systematic way of
identifying the key areas that require the constant and careful attention of management to
achieve performance goals. Fortune and White (2006) asserted that CSFs are the best-known
approach for tackling the human and organisational aspects of projects. Niazi et al. (2003)
argued that CSFs are used to establish a baseline to formulate a means for the maturity of the
process. Yeo and Ren (2009) claimed that process maturity is mainly dependent on key
capability areas extracted from CSFs. Ali and Kidd (2013) stated that the identification of
CSFs help practitioners to work on areas responsible for the success of a process. Niazi et al.
(2003) emphasised on the identification of CSFs is the measure to provide guidelines for
improvements.

World Economic Forum (WEF) (2013) reported that the success of any PPP project is largely
dependent on the country’s maturity on each CSF that made PPP projects successful. Thus,
approaches to using CSFs to develop PPP process maturity received scarce attention. For
instance, there is a paucity of studies conducted to investigate the maturity of stakeholder
organisations on CSFs for PPP projects, especially in Nigeria and developing countries at
large. Few studies that investigated PPPs maturity (see Deloitte, 2007) failed to discuss the
phenomenon from primary stakeholder organisations’ perspectives. This study aims to fill
this gap. It is in pursuance of this that primary stakeholder organisations in both the public
and private sectors already involved in PPP projects implementation to include public sector
authorities, concessionaires, local lenders/banks, consultants, and contractors are assessed to
know their current capability maturity levels in respect to CSFs for PPP projects in Nigeria.

Capability maturity model (CMM) concept

Capability maturity concept has its origin in quality process improvements and traces back to
Crosby (1979) studies in the late 1970’s. Paulk et al. (1993) stated that Capability Maturity
Model (CMM) was first developed in the software industry by the Carnegie Mellon
University as a framework to inspect capability maturity of software providers. Fraser et al.
(2002) affirmed that the modern day capability maturity concept gained its popularity based
on the software CMM, initiated in the early 1990’s in the USA. Eadie et al. (2011) asserted
that since 1991, many CMMs have been developed and recognised internationally. The
concept of CMM is increasingly applied in many disciplines. For example, software
engineering, manufacturing, project management in construction industry among others as a
means for both assessment and a roadmap for improvement (Fraser et al., 2002; Yeo and Yen,
2009). Software Engineering Institute (SEI) (2010) reported that CMMs focus on improving
processes in an organisation. However, a similar application on stakeholder organisations
involved in PPP projects implementation across the world is limited. Considering this
awareness, there is a need for a framework to be developed to assess the current maturity of
stakeholder organisations in PPP projects. The framework would provide the roadmap for
continuous improvement to guarantee the long-term success of PPP projects implementation,
particularly in developing countries. Today, the CMM has metamorphosed to become CMMI,
where “I” denotes “Integration” of System or Software Engineering (SEI, 2010). This study
adopted CMMI concept out of a number of maturity models available. The rationale for
adopting CMMI is that it provides a step-by-step framework, which enables organisations to
assess where they positioned within the framework and then provides guidelines on what are
their process improvement priorities (see Paulk et al.,1993; Hutchinson and Finnemore, 1999;
SEI, 2010). It is also due to its huge recognition by the industry and academia. For instance,
notable earlier researchers in construction management and economics have adopted CMMI
for their studies and have been published in reputable refereed journals (see Sarshar et al.,
2000; Keraminiyage et al., 2006; Keraminiyage et al., 2007; Sun, 2009; Eadie et al., 2011;
Eadie et al., 2012).

CMMI process areas

CMMI identify 22 generic process areas and describes it as a cluster of related practices in an
area with a view to making improvement in that area (SEI, 2010). The identified 22 process
areas in CMMI are classified into four. This includes process management, project
management, engineering, and support. The concept of process capability maturity within an
organisation is presented as models, which comprise several maturity levels (Keraminiyage et
al., 2007). Therefore, the maturity level is described as an evolutionary plateau for
organisational process improvement (SEI, 2010). In CMMI, there are five maturity levels,
and each level provides for process improvement in an organisation. The five maturity levels
in CMMI are represented by the numbers “1 to 5”, and are presented in Figure 1 as follows:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Insert Figure 1 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

As shown in Figure 1, the maturity levels are in ascending order that indicates that
organisation that intends to advance to higher levels has to fulfil higher capability levels
criteria. This study adopted the CMMI concept to assess and determine the current maturity
levels of stakeholder organisations in PPP projects with a view to providing a roadmap for
improvement.

Characteristics of capability maturity levels

Curtis et al. (2002) asserted that excluding maturity level 1; all other maturity levels (i.e.
level 2 to level 5) are characterised by a set of interrelated practices. Therefore, it is necessary
to understand the peculiarities of each maturity level (i.e. level 1- level 5) as depicted in
Figure 1. The five maturity levels are named as ad hoc, repeatable, defined, managed, and
optimising. The characteristics of each maturity level are briefly discussed as follows:
Level 1—Ad hoc
Some earlier researchers also called this level initial (Curtis et al., 2002). Whatever this level
is called either ad hoc or initial, it is referred to as immature (Sarshar et al., 2000).
Organisations at this level usually have difficulty in retaining talented individuals, processes
are chaotic, results are unpredictable, and project success depends on individual efforts within
the organisations (Curtis et al., 2002; Kwak and Ibbs, 2002; Keraminiyage et al., 2007).
Level 2—Repeatable
Organisations at this level have the likelihood to predict the project (Sarshar et al., 2000). In
level 2, processes are established, and practises/or activities are carried out in line with
organisation policy (SEI, 2010; Office of Government Commerce OGC, 2010). The practices
undertaken are unit level issues including establishment of commitments, resources and
training are provided, and responsibilities are assigned among others (Curtis et al., 2002; SEI,
2010, PRINCE 2, 2012). The establishment of a strong unit for practices guarantee more
sophisticated practices at higher levels of maturity.
Level 3—Defined
At level 3 standard processes, methodologies among others are established within the
organisation (SEI, 2010). These standard practices are used to establish consistency across
the organisation (SEI, 2010). Sarshar et al. (2000) argued that organisation at level 3
develops the capability to capture and share best practices. Curtis et al. (2002) averred that
maturity level 3 helps an organisation gaining competitive advantage with the development of
different competencies to achieve organisation and business strategies. Therefore, an
organisation at level 3 has established the organisational framework for developing its
workforce.
Level 4—Managed
At level 4, tools and database are in use, and predictions are made, based on statistical
analysis (Crawford 2006; SEI, 2010; APSC, 2012; PRINCE 2, 2012). Therefore, the
organisation is managing its capability and performance quantitatively (Curtis et al., 2002;
SEI, 2010; OGC, 2010; PRINCE 2, 2012). This capability is sustained and used as criteria in
managing projects and other activities (Curtis et al., 2002; SEI, 2010).
Level 5—Optimising
This is the most mature level. Therefore, organisation focuses on continual improvement
through incremental and innovative process (Curtis et al., 2002; Kwak and Ibbs, 2002;
Keraminiyage et al., 2007; SEI, 2010; OGC, 2010; PRINCE 2, 2012). At this stage,
individuals are empowered to improve their process, organisation capturing lessons learned
and feedback loop in place. Further, both qualitative and quantitative approaches are adopted
by organisation to understand the variations inherent in the process (Paulk et al., 1993; Curtis
et al., 2002; SEI, 2010; OGC, 2010; PRINCE 2, 2012). The summary of each maturity level
characteristics is presented in Table 1 as follows:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Insert Table 1 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Having identified the characteristics of each capability maturity level as indicated in Table 1,
the following criteria are provided as a guide to ensure that organisations are not overstayed
when advancing through their capability maturity levels. The criteria are as follows:
 Organisations seeking to move from capability maturity level 1 to level 2 should
establish a more disciplined process and a process group.
 Organisations advancing from level 2 to level 3 must have in place: (i) policies and
plans that indicated the organisation will perform the process; and (ii) the organisation
has been disciplined by establishing sound project management.
  Organisations moving from level 3 to level 4 must have demonstrated: (i)
organisational standard process exists that associated with that process area; (ii) the
processes in the organisation are more consistently defined and applied because they
are based on organisational standard processes.
 Organisations seeking to move from level 4 to level 5 must have exhibited: (i)
organisation focused on performance improvement of processes by using statistical
and other quantitative techniques to improve organisational and project processes; (ii)
organisation focused on understanding and controlling performance at the sub-process
level and using the results to manage projects, and predictions are based in part, on a
statistical analysis.
 Organisations in level 5 should be demonstrating: (i) continuous wide performance
management and process improvement by using both qualitative and quantitative data
to make decisions.

Maturity models in the construction industry

Some studies on CMM have been conducted in the construction industry. For instance,
Sarshar et al. (2000) conducted research called Structured Process Improvement in
Construction Enterprises (SPICE) to understand the applicability of the principles of CMM in
the construction industry. The SPICE project aimed at improving processes on individual
construction projects. Keraminiyage et al. (2006) presented a conceptual framework for the
construction higher capability maturity level dynamics. Keraminiyage et al. (2007) identified
higher capability maturity KPAs (key process areas) of construction organisations. Sun et al.
(2009) conducted a study on a change management maturity model for construction projects.
Eadie et al. (2011) identified the KPAs for an e-capability maturity model for construction
organisations in the UK. Eadie et al. (2012) developed measures to capture capability
maturity of ICT applications in the construction industry among others. Saleh and Alshawi
(2005) asserted that there are some different models that can be used to establish the maturity
of a system. Thus, the selected maturity models applied to project management in the
construction industry are presented in Table 2 as follows:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Insert Table 2 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

It is evident from Table 2 that some maturity models are in existence and applied to project
management in the construction industry with a view to improving productivity and attains
quality gains. However, contributions of these maturity models to PPP project
implementation are limited. Sarshar et al. (2000) advocated for a process improvement
framework for the construction industry to meet the targets set by Sir Michael Latham in
constructing the team (Latham, 1994). It is against this backdrop that necessitated this study
aims at using CSFs to develop a capability enhancement framework for stakeholder
organisations in PPP projects in Nigeria. Currently, no such framework exists in PPP
projects, and this development is considered to be beneficial to the construction industry at
large. Therefore, this framework would be useful in assessing the current capability maturity
level of stakeholder organisations involved in PPP projects. It would further provide the
roadmap for continuous improvement to guarantee the long-term success of PPP projects
implementation in Nigeria and developing countries at large.
Research methodology
The methodology adopted for this study comprised a number of methods, namely, review of
the literature, case studies (including semi-structured interview and review of documentary
evidence within each case study), expert forum and validation (see Figure 2).

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Insert Figure 2 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

In order to produce a plan that guides the process of collecting and analysing the data for this
study, it is important, first to establish the philosophical underpinning on which the study
stands. For instance, earlier researchers have emphasised a philosophical underpinning in the
research process (see Collis and Hussey, 2003; Flick, 2006; Thurairajah et al., 2006; Dainty,
2007; Badu et al., 2012). Against this backdrop, the philosophical approach to case study
design is based on post-positivist. This is supported by earlier researchers (see Eisenhardt,
1989; Flyvbjerg, 2011; Yin, 2012) that viewed the case study approach from a post-positivist
viewpoint. Also, a number of earlier researchers supported case study research design. For
instance, Amaratunga and Baldry (2001) asserted that case study research provides a holistic
view of an event being studied. Fellows & Liu (2008) stated that case study allows an in-
depth investigation of a research subject. Barkley (2004) argued that case study design is
suitable for addressing “how” and “why” research question (s) within a study. Within the
context of this study, a multiple case study approach was adopted to answer the research
question:
RQ1. How can capability maturity levels of PPP stakeholder organisations be
developed using CSFs?
Case study design can be in two forms: (i) a single case; and (ii) a multiple cases (Yin, 1994).
Barkley (2004) argued that the choice of either single case or multiple case designs is greatly
influenced by the nature of the research study. Yin (2003) claimed that using a single case
study may not be relied on to draw conclusions about the population. Barkley (2004) argued
that using a multiple case design allows generalisation of findings or replication within the
cases. Yin (2009) affirmed that the results generated through multiple case studies are
considered more compelling and robust. Thus, PPP infrastructure projects are unique, and it
is unlikely to generalise the findings from a single project case study, particularly in
developing countries where culture and stakeholders maturity are different. It is against this
backdrop that multiple case studies were employed to investigate the research question and
generate more reliable data, and to minimise misrepresentation. Amaratunga and Baldry
(2001) argued that cases selections are unavoidably involved discretion and judgement.
Creswell (2009) asserted that the researchers are purposively select cases and participants.
Thus, the selection of the participants and cases does not necessarily involve a large number
of participants and cases (Creswell, 2009). It is on this note that this study selected six PPP
infrastructure project case studies in Lagos metropolis, Nigeria. The selected case studies
were grouped into two sets. The first set comprised physical infrastructure/or civil and
engineering PPP projects. This includes the concession of Lekki-Epe Expressway (road); the
concession of Muritala Mohammed Airport (MMA2); and the concession of seaports. The
second set encompassed social infrastructure PPP projects. This includes the development of
university hostel accommodation (i.e. Emerald hostel at University of Lagos); Kanti towers
modern office complex; and development of Tejuosho ultra-modern shopping complex
within the study area. The summary of the selected six case studies is presented in Table 3.
 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Insert Table 3 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The rationales for choosing these PPP infrastructure project case studies are: (i) they are the
first set of PPP infrastructure projects awarded by federal government and Lagos state
government in Nigeria; (ii) the six selected case studies are in operation stage; (iii) it is
apparent that the selected case studies are exhibiting appropriate characteristics of CSFs that
made the case studies successful; and (iv) the stakeholder organisations involved in these
case studies have the ability to determine their current capability maturity levels on each CSF
and possibility for continuous improvement. Therefore, the selected PPP case studies are
adjudged appropriate and suitable for developing a capability enhancement framework for
stakeholder organisations in PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria. This is similar to earlier
studies on Capability Maturity Model (CMM). For instance, Sarshar et al. (2000) adopted
two case studies when conducting a business process diagnostics tool for construction
projects (i.e. SPICE). Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow (2003) adopted case study when
exploring the maturity of project management in six different industries. Bay and Skitmore
(2006) conducted six case studies when assessing the level of project management maturity
in Indonesian companies. Rwelamila (2007) conducted one case study when exploring
project management maturity in public sector infrastructure organisations in South Africa.
Rwelamila and Phungula (2009) undertook one case study when assessing organisational
project management maturity of the South African public institutions involved in public-
private partnership (PPP) projects.
The target population for this study are key stakeholders/top management to include public
sector authorities (i.e. ministries, department, and agencies), concessionaires, local
lenders/banks, consultants, and contractors’ organisations involved in the aforementioned six
PPP project case studies. As earlier stated, the study adopted a number of methods for
gathering the data (see Figure 2). For instance, a comprehensive literature review was
conducted. The outcome of the literature review made a significant input into the
identification of the specific CSFs for the successful PPP infrastructure projects in Nigeria. It
also strengthened the basis of inquiry for the empirical data collection and analysis. This
study therefore, adopted the CSFs for PPP projects identified by previous researchers through
a rigorous primary data collection and analysis in Nigeria (see Babatunde et al., 2012; Dada
and Oladokun, 2012; and Babatunde et al., 2015). These selected studies on CSFs in Nigeria
have been published in reputable international journals and thus recognised by both academia
and industry in Nigeria. Thus, the identified CSFs were filtered (i.e. to avoid duplication) to
generate a total of 14 CSFs that made PPP projects successful in Nigeria. In this regard, the
identified 14 CSFs are adjudged typical of any successful PPP project in Nigeria.
Therefore, the 14 identified CSFs were employed for capability maturity levels definition
ranging from level 1(Ad hoc) to level 5(Optimizing) in accordance with Capability Maturity
Model (CMM) concept, this led to the development of conceptual framework (see Figure 2).
This approach is similar to earlier studies. For instance, Keraminiyage et al. (2006) adopted
literature review to identify KPAs when exploring the dynamics of the CMM higher
capability maturity level characteristics within the UK construction. Ram and Corkindale
(2014) used already identified CSFs in the literature when examining the role of CSFs for
enterprise resource planning (ERP) among others. In order to refine the conceptual
framework, a five-man expert panel drawn from both public and private sector organisations
was constituted, due their organisations notable involvement in PPP infrastructure projects in
Nigeria. The criteria formulated by Chan et al. (2001) were modified to identify eligible
experts for the panel as follows:
  Having above 10 years working experience in construction industry.
 Involving directly in over 5 PPP infrastructure projects implementation.
 Having reached the managerial level in the public sector or managing director in the
private sector or head of the unit in financial institutions/local banks.

Consequently, 5 experts were purposively selected after satisfying the criteria as mentioned
earlier. This approach is supported by some earlier researchers. For instance, Marshall (1996)
asserted that purposive sampling technique enables the researcher to select actively the most
productive sample to answer the research question(s). Badu et al. (2012) argued that
purposive sampling technique enables a researcher to select the study participants
consciously. The category of stakeholder organisations selected for the expert forum is as
follows:
 Expert 1: Local lender/Bank- First Bank of Nigeria Plc. (Head office)
 Expert 2: Public sector authorities- PPP office, Lagos
 Expert 3: Public sector authorities- Lagos State Development and Property
Corporation
 Expert 4: Concessionaire- Lekki Concession Company, Lagos
 Expert 5: Consultant-Royal Haskoning DHV (Nigeria office).
The selected experts were consented to participate in the forum. Thus, the documents
encompassed: cover letter; instructions; conceptual framework; capability maturity levels (1-
5) characteristics; and editing document were sent through email to the 5-man expert panel.
After one month, they all gave their feedback. Hence, the feedback was used to refine and
improve the conceptual framework. Thereafter, the conceptual framework was taking to the
aforementioned six PPP case studies for the purpose of verification of the capability maturity
levels definition of the framework and to use the framework to determine the current
capability maturity levels of stakeholder organisation on each CSF (see Figure 2). The semi-
structured interviews were conducted to tap lived experience and interviewees were selected
from the top management of different key stakeholders in both the public and private sectors
in the aforementioned six PPP case studies (see Figure 2). Thus, face-to-face interviews were
conducted with 36 key stakeholders comprised 18 interviewees from the public sector and 18
interviewees from the private sector in the six PPP case studies (see Table 3 for details).
These key stakeholders in each case study comprised 3 from the public sector authorities (i.e.
ministries, department and agencies) and 3 from the private sector to include: consultants,
concessionaires, local lenders/banks, and contractors (see Table 3 for details). In ensuring the
reliability and validity, both internal and external validations were conducted on the
framework developed in this study (see Figure 2).

Results and discussion

Table 4 shows the background information of 36 interviewees from both the public and
private sectors in the six PPP case studies (representing six interviewees in each case study).
The interviewees were top management with their professional years of experience ranging
from 8 to 28 years (see Table 4 for details) and had directly involved in PPP infrastructure
projects from conception to completion.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Insert Table 4 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The verification and refinement of the framework were achieved through the use of
framework for the semi-structured interviews coupled with personal observation, and review
of documentary evidence in the six case studies. In order to use the framework to assess the
stakeholder organisations current capability maturity level on the identified 14 CSFs, a
capability maturity level between 1-5, where 1 = ad hoc and 5= optimizing was provided in
the framework. Consequently, within a particular capability maturity level (i.e.1-5), an
identified factors characteristics were provided, which were used as the criteria for the rating
of the interview questions with respect to each CSF. In this regard, a scale rating 1-5 was
developed to rate the extent the stakeholder organisations have gone into a particular
capability maturity level they belong. Therefore, the quantitative assessment was considered
as a support tool for making an overall assessment of both the public and private
organisations current capability maturity levels and for comparison approach. This is
supported by previous researchers. For instance, Bay and Skitmore (2006) quantitatively
assessed the level of project management maturity in Indonesian companies. Tembo and
Rwelamila (2008) measured project management maturity in public sector organisation in
Botswana. Cooke-Davies and Arzymanow (2003) quantitatively assessed the maturity of
project management in six different industries. Rwelamila and Phungula (2009) adopted
quantitative assessment when exploring organisational project management maturity of the
South African public institutions involved in public-private partnership (PPP) projects among
others. It is on this premise that the researcher was able to assess the current capability
maturity levels of stakeholder organisations involved in PPP projects implementation. The
results of average total scores for each of the assessed 14 identified CSF from both the public
and private sectors in the six case studies are presented in Table 5 as follows:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Insert Table 5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Table 5 indicates the capability maturity levels of the stakeholder organisations involved in
PPP infrastructure projects from both the public and private sectors on 14 CSFs assessed in
this study. The findings reveal that 12 (out of 14) CSFs that assessed were applicable to the
public sector organisations and their capability maturity levels ranging from 1.40 to 2.85,
which is maturity level 1 (ad hoc) and maturity level 2 (repeatable). It can be deduced that the
public sector organisations including ministries, departments, and agencies have low
capability maturity levels between level 1 (ad hoc) and level 2 (repeatable) on these CSFs.
For instance, the public sector organisations were in level 1 (ad hoc) on project technical
feasibility, transparency in the procurement process, and appropriate risk allocation and risk
sharing with their overall average scores of 1.40, 1.60, and 1.70 respectively. Thus, these
scores were equivalent to 28%, 32%, and 34% respectively of the overall total score of 5
points assigned to the maximum point achievable. This finding is similar to previous studies.
For instance, Rwelamila (2007) found that the public sector organisations involved in large
infrastructure projects in South Africa were at the lowest level of maturity, which is level 1
(out of 5 maturity levels). Rwelamila and Phungula (2009) found that project management
maturity of the South African public sector organisations involved in PPP projects were in
maturity level 1 (out of 5 maturity levels) which is ‘ad hoc’. Tembo and Rwelamila (2008)
found an average maturity level of 2.3, which is maturity level 2 in all project management
knowledge areas in public sector organisations responsible for infrastructure development in
Botswana among others.
Table 5 further shows the capability maturity levels of the private sector organisations
including concessionaires, local lenders/banks, contractors, and consultants on 8 (out of 14)
CSFs associated with the private sector (see Table 5 for details). The result indicates that the
private sector organisations capability maturity levels were ranging from 2.45 to 3.20, which
is maturity level 2 (repeatable) and maturity level 3 (defined). Thus, the private sector
organisations were in level 3 (i.e. defined) on project economic viability, and thorough and
realistic assessment of the cost and benefits with their overall average scores of 3.20 and
3.13, which is equivalent to 64% and 62.6% of the overall total score of 5 points assigned to
the maximum point achievable. Also, the private sector organisations were in level 2 (i.e.
repeatable) on the others CSFs applicable to them (see Table 4). Moreover, the total average
scores attained under each CSF from both the public and private sector organisations were
mapped along the capability maturity levels (i.e. Level 1 – Level 5) to show the trends of
their current capability maturity levels as illustrated in Figure 3 and Figure 4 as follows:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Insert Figure 3 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Insert Figure 4 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

The arrows in Figure 3 and Figure 4 indicate the public and private sector organisations
current capability maturity levels with respect to each CSF associated with each stakeholder
organisation in PPP projects implementation in Nigeria. Therefore, as stated earlier the
quantitative assessment was considered as a support tool for making an overall assessment of
both the public and private organisations current capability maturity levels and for
comparison approach. Therefore, this study presents the framework that contains two CSFs
applicable to both the public and private sector organisations in Figure 5 as follows:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Insert Figure 5 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Framework validation and evaluation

Framework validation is important to ensure the quality of the research outcomes (Cheung,
2009). Awodele (2012) affirmed that framework validation and evaluation are
complementary in nature and both are required to prove the reliability and validity of a given
framework. It is on this premise that both the internal and external validation was conducted
on the stakeholder organisations capability enhancement framework developed in this study
(see Figure 2). In achieving the internal validation, the researcher presented the framework to
already interviewed top management staff in the six PPP project case studies (see Figure 2
and Table 4 for interviewees’ details). The selected top management are prospective users of
the framework. Thus, the purposes of presenting the framework in the case studies are:
1. To enable the key stakeholders/top management assess and identify any process
issues not addressed in the framework.
2. To internally validate the framework, based on suitability and applicability of the
framework in PPP projects implementation in Nigeria.
3. To determine if the recommendations derived are meaningful.
(1) The case studies assessment on any process issues not addressed in the framework
revealed that stakeholders were satisfied with the framework, but several comments were
raised as follows:

 “Though is not part of the framework, but it is important to prepare the mind of
stakeholders on constraints that can influence the organisations maturity on those
critical success factors in the framework in Nigeria”.
 “The framework is too voluminous”.
(2) The case studies assessment on suitability and applicability of the framework showed a
consensus among the stakeholders that the framework is suitable for use and has practical
relevance in PPP projects implementation particularly in Nigeria. Several of the stakeholder
responses are as follows:

 A project consultant in case study 3 has this to say:

“The framework is first of its kind in implementing PPP projects in Nigeria. It offers a
useful guide”.
 A stakeholder from Lagos State Development and Property Corporation (LSDPC) that
involved in case study 5 said:
“The framework is logical, clear and very useful. But if it can be assessed
electronically, it would facilitate the usage”.
 A stakeholder from Lagos State Public Private Partnership (PPP) Office that involved
in case study 1 said:
“This is a thorough framework for measuring the maturity of different stakeholder
organisations on critical success factors. The framework captured all critical success
factors that always present in successful PPP projects in Nigeria. Moreover, the
framework can be used as an assessment tool for prequalification of bidders in future
PPP projects in Nigeria”.
(3) Based on these selected responses and other meaningful recommendations made by the
selected stakeholders in the six case studies, it is evident that the framework is relevant and
very useful in PPP projects implementation in Nigeria and the stakeholders are happy to use
the framework.
To further prove the reliability and validity of the framework developed in this study,
external validation was conducted (see Figure 2). This validation process involved the PPP
experts in the public and private sector organisations, and academia. This is supported by
earlier researchers. For instance, Liyanage and Egbu (2008) refined and validated the
performance management framework (PMF) using the views of practitioners and academia,
and the academia were mainly university lecturers and professors. Cheung (2009) validated a
best practice framework for implementing PPPs in Hong Kong using nine respondents
comprised PPP experts and academia among others. Therefore, the validation and evaluation
of the framework was based on six assessment criteria identified by Yeung (2007), Cheung
(2009), and Awodele (2012). The six assessment criteria include comprehensiveness;
objectivity; practicality; replicability; reliability; and overall suitability of the framework for
use in Nigeria. In this regard, the six aforementioned assessment criteria were used to develop
a questionnaire survey for validation and evaluation of the framework. The questionnaire
survey was based on a similar validation process undertaken by previous researchers. For
instance, Yeung (2007) adopted questionnaire survey to validate the partnering performance
index model. Cheung (2009) conducted questionnaire survey to validate the best practice
framework for implementing PPP projects in Hong Kong. Awodele (2012) employed
questionnaire survey to validate the framework for managing risk in the privately financed
project in Nigeria among others. Thus, the following criteria were set-up to select the
respondents for validation exercise:
 Having extensive working experience in PPP projects in Nigeria.
 Involving directly, recently, or currently in PPP projects in Nigeria.
 Having reached the managerial level in the public sector or managing director in the
private sector or active researcher in academia.
Therefore, for equal representation nine prospective respondents were purposively selected
having met the aforementioned criteria to include three each from the public sector, private
sector, and academia. This approach is supported by earlier researchers (see Cheung, 2009)
among others. Against this backdrop, an e-mail invitation/request for participation in the
validation and evaluation stage of the framework was sent to the nine selected prospective
respondents. The nine selected respondents were agreed to participate in the validation
exercise. Therefore, the evaluation instrument (i.e. questionnaire) and the framework were
sent to the nine respondents via email. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. The
first section contained purpose, background and information of the respondent. The other
section comprised the six validation assessment criteria. Thus, the respondents were asked to
rate their extent of satisfaction for each of the six validation criteria, based on a scoring scale
from 1-5: Where, 5- Excellent; 4- Above Average; 3- Average; 2- Below Average; and 1-
Poor. The detail background information of respondents involved in validation of the
framework is presented in Table 6 as follows:

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Insert Table 6>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Table 6 revealed a total of nine respondents comprised three each from the public sector,
private sector, and academia. The academic qualification of the respondents indicates that one
respondent has the bachelor degree (BSc). Six respondents have master’s degree (MSc), and
two of the respondents have PhD in their fields of study. Similarly, the respondents have
professional experience ranging from 18-36 years in their various sectors comprising
construction industry, active researcher among others (see Table 6). Based on the foregoing,
it is evident that the respondents have vast experience in PPPs and adequate professional
experience. It can be deduced that the validation and evaluation provided by these
respondents are reliable and a true assessment of the newly developed framework. Further,
the result of the framework validation is presented in Table 7.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Insert Table 7 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Based on the results obtained from the validation exercise (see Table 7), it is evident that
“degree of comprehensiveness” of the framework has the highest mean score value of 4.11
among the six validation assessment criteria adopted in evaluating the framework (see Table
7). This implies that the framework is very thorough and rigorous. Also, “overall suitability
of the framework in PPP projects in Nigeria” was rated second with a mean score value of
4.00; this means that the framework offers a useful guide for improvement and suitable for
use by stakeholder organisations involved in PPP infrastructure projects implementation in
Nigeria. Thus, it can be deduced that the framework offers a better value in the identification
of specific capabilities/or CSFs that demands special attention for successful PPP projects in
Nigeria. Table 7 further indicated that all the six validation assessment criteria have the mean
score values ranging from 3.67 to 4.11; this implies that all the respondents considered the
framework very satisfactory in each of the six validation assessment criterion. Therefore, it is
apparent that the newly developed framework was validated to be comprehensive, objective,
practical, replicable, reliable, and suitable for use by stakeholder organisations in PPP
projects implementation in Nigeria.

Conclusions
Today, it is increasingly evident that a number of maturity models are in existence and
applied to project management in the construction industry, most especially Capability
Maturity Models (CMM) which has been documented being successfully used for process
improvement in many disciplines. However, the applications of these maturity models to
process improvement in PPP infrastructure projects implementation received scarce attention.
Thus, there is a need for a methodical approach and standard to process improvement in PPP
projects. Against this backdrop, this study adopted the concept of CMM with respect to
critical success factors (CSFs) to develop a capability enhancement framework for
stakeholder organisations in PPP projects. The application of the framework in assessing the
current capability maturity levels of primary stakeholder organisations involved in PPP
infrastructure projects in Nigeria revealed that public sector organisations were between
maturity level 1 and maturity level 2 (out of 5 maturity levels) on each CSF applicable to
them. While private sector organisations were mostly in maturity level 2 on each CSF
associated with them. It is established in this study that Nigeria’s maturity is between
maturity level 1 and maturity level 2 (out of 5 maturity levels) on CSFs that made PPP
projects successful. These findings are similar to previous studies that found low maturity
level, which is between level 1 and level 2 in all project management knowledge areas for
public sector organisations involved in both large infrastructure projects development and in
PPP infrastructure projects in South Africa and Botswana among others. This study is not
without limitations. First, the identification of CSFs adopted to develop the framework based
on a literature review, having other methods together such as questionnaire survey, which
allows a rigorous statistical analysis may enrich the findings. Second, currently no such
framework developed in this study exists for process improvement in PPP projects. Thus, the
accuracy needs improvement in future work. Third, the framework is currently designed for
stakeholder organisations in PPP projects, hence limiting the use of the framework to PPP
projects only. Despite its limitations, the framework developed in this study would be a
useful guide and providing roadmaps for improvement by indicating ‘what’ needs to be done
in achieving higher capability maturity levels on each CSF applicable to both the public and
private sector organisations in PPP projects in Nigeria. Also, the framework had provided the
benchmark for the identification of methodical approach and standard to process
improvement in PPP projects, which can be replicated in the developed and developing
countries. Therefore, the framework is expected to enhance the success rate of PPP projects
implementation, most especially in Nigeria and developing countries as a whole. The study
findings would further enhance the conceptual and practical utility of the CSFs concept in the
construction industry at large. Based on the findings of this study, the following policy
recommendations are proposed:
 It is recommended that the public and private sector organisations in PPP projects, most
especially in Nigeria and other developing countries are encouraged to apply the framework,
as the framework provided feasible improvement roadmaps in achieving higher capability
maturity levels.
 Since both the public and private sector organisations are in low capability maturity
levels, it is therefore required of the stakeholder organisations in PPP projects
implementation to undertake broad improvement programmes in achieving higher
capability maturity levels. Consequently, once the improvement programmes are
implemented; they need to be assessed to see whether they are effective.
It is evident that this study has not only made contributions to knowledge in relation to the
use of CSFs to develop PPP process maturity framework for stakeholder organisations in PPP
projects, but also contributes to the wider body of knowledge of process improvement in the
construction industry. Therefore, further study should be conducted to widening the
understanding of CSFs to develop PPP project process maturity in other countries, using a
comparative approach.
References
Ali, U., and Kidd, C. (2013), “Critical success factors for configuration management
implementation”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 113 No. 2, pp. 250-
264.
Amaratunga, D. and Baldry, D. (2001), “Case study methodology as a means of theory
building: performance measurement in facilities management organisations”, Work
Study, Vol. 50 No. 3, pp. 95-104.
Australian Public Service Commission,(APSC) Report (2012), “Organisational capability”,
available at: http://www.apsc.gov.au/_data/assests/pdf_file/(Accessed 28 July 2014).
Awodele, A. O. (2012), “Framework for managing risk in privately financed market projects
in Nigeria”, unpublished PhD thesis, Heriot-Watt University, UK.
Babatunde, S.O., Opawole, A. and Akinsiku, O. E. (2012), “Critical success factors in public-
private partnership (PPP) on infrastructure delivery in Nigeria”, Journal of Facilities
Management, Vol. 10 No.3, pp. 212 – 225.
Babatunde, S.O., Perera, S., Zhou, L. and Udeaja, C. (2015), “Stakeholders’ perceptions on
critical success factors for public-private partnership projects in Nigeria”, Built
Environment Project and Asset Management (In press).
Badu, E., Edwards, D. J., Owusu-Manu, D., and Brown, D. M. (2012), “Barriers to the
implementation of innovative financing (IF) of infrastructure”, Journal of Financial
Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 17 No. 3, pp. 253 – 273.
Barkley, B. T. (2004), Project Risk Management, McGraw-Hill, New York.
Bay, A. F. and Skitmore, M. (2006), “Project management maturity: some results from
Indonesia”, Journal of Building and Construction Management, Vol. 10, pp. 1-5.
Bullen, C.V. and Rockart, J. F. (1981), “A primer on critical success factors”, Sloan Working
Paper No. 1220-81, CISR No. 69.
Chan, A. P. C., Yung, E. H. K., Lam, P. T. I., Tam, C. M., and Cheung, S. O. (2001),
“Application of Delphi method in selection of procurement systems for construction
projects”, Construction Management and Economics,Vol. 19 No.7, pp. 699-718.
Cheung, E. (2009), “Developing a best practice framework for implementing public private
partnership (PPPs) in Hong Kong”, unpublished PhD thesis, Queensland University
of Technology, Australia.
Cheung, E., Chan, A. P. C., Lam, P. T. I., Chan, D. W. M., and Ke, Y. (2012), “A
comparative study of critical success factors for public private partnerships (PPP)
between Mainland China and Hong Kong special administrative region”, Facilities-
Special Issue on Facility Management Development, Vol. 30 No.13/14, pp. 647-666.
Collis, J. and Hussey, R. (2003), Business Research: A Practical Guide for Undergraduate
and Postgraduate Students, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, NY.
Construct IT, (2000), Introduction to SPICE, Construct IT Centre of Excellence, University
of Salford, UK.
Construct IT, (2001), SPICE FM: A step by step organisational development framework for
facilities management, Construct IT Centre of Excellence, University of Salford, UK.
Cooke-Davies, T. J. and Arzymanow, A. (2003), “The maturity of project management in
different industries: an investigation into variations between project management
models”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21, pp. 471–478.
Crawford, J. K. (2006), “The project management maturity model”, Information Systems
Management,Vol. 23 No.4, pp. 50-58.
Creswell, J. W. (2009), Research design: Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods
approaches, Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, California.
Crosby, P. B. (1979), Quality is Free, McGraw-Hill: New York.
Curtis, B., Hefley, W. E., and Miller, S. A. (2002), “Overview of the people capability
maturity model”, availabe at:
http://www.informit.com/articles/article.aspx?p=25349&seqNum=4(Accessed 28 July
2014)
Dada, M. O. and Oladokun, M. G. (2012), “Analysis of critical success sub-factors for
public–private-partnerships in Nigeria”, Alam Cipta, Vol. 5 No. 2, pp.13-26.
Dainty, A. (2007), “A call for methodological pluralism in built environment research”,
Proceedings of the Third Scottish Conference for Postgraduate Researchers of the
Built and Natural Environment, November 20-22, Glasgow Caledonian University,
UK.
Deloitte (2007), “Closing American infrastructure gap: the role of public private
partnerships”, available at: http://www.delotte.com/assets/Dcom-
UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/us_ps_PPPUS_final(1).pdf (Accessed 25
January 2013).
Eadie, R., Perera, S. and Heaney, G. (2011), “Key process area mapping in the production of
an e-capability maturity model for UK construction organisations”, Journal of
Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol.16 No. 3, pp. 197 – 210.
Eadie, R., Perera, S. and Heaney, G. (2012),"Capturing maturity of ICT applications in
construction processes", Journal of Financial Management of Property and
Construction, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 176 – 194.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989), “Building theories from case study research”, Academy of
Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 4, pp. 532-550.
Famakin, I. O., Aje, I. O., and Ogunsemi, D. R. (2012), “Assessment of success factors for
joint venture construction projects in Nigeria”, Journal of Financial Management of
Property and Construction, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 153 - 165.
Fellows, R. R. and Liu, A. (2008), Research methods for construction, Wiley-Blackwell
Science: London.
Flick, U. (2006), An introduction to qualitative research, Sage Publications: London.
Flyvbjerg, B. (2011), “Case study”, in N. K. Denzin and Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE
handbook of qualitative research, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Fortune, J., and White, D. (2006), “Framing of project critical success factors by a systems
model”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 53-65.
Fraser, P., Moultrie, J. and Gregory, M. (2002), “The use of maturity models/grids as a tool in
assessing product development capability”, Proceedings of IEEE International
Engineering Management Conference, 19-20 August, IEMC, Cambridge, UK.
Hutchinson, A. & Finnemore, M. (1999), “Standardised process improvement for
construction enterprises (SPICE)”, Total quality management & business excellence,
Vol. 10 No.4, pp. 576-583.
Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC) (2014),“Public-private partnership
projects pipeline”, available at: http://www.icrc.gov.ng/projects.php (Accessed 24
May, 2015).
Jefferies, M. C., Gameson, R., and Rowlinson, S. (2002), “Critical success factors of the
BOOT procurement system: Reflection from the stadium Australia case study”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 9 No. 4, pp. 352-361.
Kaur, J. (2014), “Comparative study of capability maturity model”, International Journal of
Advanced Research in Computer Science & Technology, Vol. 2 No.1, pp. 47-49.
Keraminiyage, K. P., Amaratunga, D., and Haigh, R. P. (2006), “Higher capability maturity
dynamics of UK construction organisations”, Paper presented at the 6th International
Postgraduate Conference , 3-7 April, Salford, UK.
Keraminiyage, K. P., Amaratunga, R. D. G., and Haigh, R. P. (2007), “Identifying higher
capability maturity KPAs of construction organisations; model refinement through
expert interviews”, Paper presented at the 7th International Postgraduate Conference
in the Built and Human Environment 28th - 29th March, Salford Quays, UK.
Kerzner, H. (1997), Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and
controlling, John Wiley & Sons: Canada.
Kwak, Y. H., and Ibbs, C. W. (2002), “Project management process maturity (PM)2 model”,
Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 150–155.
Latham, M. (1994), Constructing the Team, HMSO: London.
Li, B., Akintoye, A., Edwards, P. J., and Hardcastle, C. (2005), “Critical success factors for
PPP/PFI projects in the UK construction industry”, Construction Management and
Economics, Vol. 23 No. 5, pp. 459-471.
Lianying, Z., Jing, H., and Xinxing, Z. (2012), “The project management maturity model and
application based on PRINCE2”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 29, pp. 3691-3697.
Liyanage, C. & Egbu, C. (2008), “A performance management framework for healthcare
facilities management”, Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 23 – 36.
Niazi, M., Wilson, D., and Zowghi, D. (2003), “A maturity model for the implementation of
software process improvement: an empirical study”, The Journal of Systems and
Software, Vol. 74 No. 2, pp. 155–172.
Office of Government Commerce (OGC) (2003), “Portfolio, programme and project
management maturity model (P3M3)”, version 0.1, December 2003, Office of
Government Commerce.
Office of Government Commerce (OGC) (2004), “Prince2 Maturity Model”, version 3.0,
Draft, April 2004, Office of Government Commerce.
Office of Government Commerce (OGC) (2010), “Portfolio, programme and project
management maturity model (P3M3)”, version 2.1, available at: http://www.p3m3-
officialsite.com/P3M3Model/Model_mhtry.aspx (Accessed 30 July 2014).
Paulk, M. C., Curtis, B., Chrissis, M. B., and Weber, C. V. (1993), Capability Maturity
Model for software, version 1.1. Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon
University, (CMU/SEI-93-TR-024).
Project Management Institute (PMI) (2003), “Organizational project management maturity
models (OPM3) knowledge foundation”, available at:
http://faculty.kfupm.edu.sa/MGM/bubshait/project%20managem/PDF/opm3KF.pdf
(Accessed 30 July 2014).
PRINCE 2 (2012), “Maturity model (P2MM)”, available at: http://www.prince2.com/prince2-
maturity-models.aspx (Accessed 30 July 2014).
Qiao, L., Wang, S. Q., Tiong, R. L. K., and Chan, T. S. (2001), “Framework for critical
success factors of BOT projects in China”, Journal of Project Finance, Vol. 7 No. 1,
pp. 53-61.
Ram, J., and Corkindale, D. (2014), “How “critical” are the critical success factors (CSFs)?
examining the role of CSFs for ERP”, Business Process Management Journal, Vol.
20 No. 1, pp. 151-174.
Rwelamila, P. M. D. (2007), “Project management competence in public sector infrastructure
organisations”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 55 – 66.
Rwelamila, P. D. and Phungula, M.G. (2009) Managing the complexity of public private
partnerships initiatives: how mature are South African public institutions? In: Dainty,
A. (Ed) Proceedings 25th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September, Nottingham,
UK.
Saleh, Y. and Alshawi, M. (2005), “An alternative model for measuring the success of IS
projects: the GPIS model”, Journal of Enterprise Information Management, Vol. 18
No. 1, pp. 47-63.
Sarshar, M., Haigh, R. P., Finnemore, M., Aouad, G., Barrett, P., Baldry, D., and Sexton, M.
(2000), “SPICE: a business process diagnostic tool for construction projects”,
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, Vol. 3 No. 3, pp. 241-250.
SCRI, (2005), SPICE 3 - Structured process improvement for construction enterprises
(SPICE) level III, Salford Centre for Research and Innovation (SCRI) in the built and
human environment, University of Salford, UK.
Software Engineering Institute, (SEI) (2010), “CMMI for development, version 1.3:
improving processes for developing better products and services”, technical report,
CMU/SEI-2010-TR-033, available at: http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/10tr033.pdf
(Accessed 28 July 2014).
Sun, M., Vidalakis, C., and Oza, T. (2009), “A change management maturity model for
construction projects”, Proceedings 25th Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9
September, Nottingham, UK.
Tembo, E., and Rwelamila, P. D. (2008), Project management maturity in public sector
organizations: the case of Botswana”, in: K. Carter, S. Ogunlana, & A. Kaka (Eds.),
Transformation through Construction, Proceedings of the CIB W55/W65 Joint
Symposium, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Heriott Watt University.
Thurairajah, N., Haigh, R. and Amaratunga, R.D.G. (2006), “Leadership in construction
partnering projects: research methodological perspectives”, in Stephenson, P. and
Akintoye, A. (Eds), ARCOM Doctoral Workshop, Glasgow Caledonian University,
Glasgow.
Vetiva (2011), “Construction industry report a haven of opportunities”, available at
http://www.proshareng.com/admin/upload/reports/VetivResearchConstructioSectorRe
portMay2011.pdf (Accessed 10 October 2012).
World Economic Forum (WEF)(2013), “Strategic infrastructure steps to prepare and
accelerate public-private partnerships”, prepared in collaboration with the Boston
consulting group, available at:
http://www3.weforum.org/docs/AF13/WEF_AF13_Strategic_Infrastructure_Initiative
.pdf (Accessed 10 December 2014)
Yeo, K. T., and Ren, Y. T. (2009), “Risk management capability maturity model for complex
product systems (CoPS) projects”, Systems Engineering Vol. 12 No.4, pp. 275–294.
Yeung, F. Y. (2007), “Developing a partnering performance index (PPI) for construction
projects-a fuzzy set theory approach”, (PhD thesis), The Hong Kong Polytechnic
University, Hong Kong.
Yin, R. K. (1994), “Discovering the future of the case study method in evaluation research”,
Evaluation Practice, Vol. 15, pp. 283-290.
Yin, R. K. (2003), Case study research: design and methods, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Yin, R. K. (2009), Case study research, design and methods: Applied social research
methods series, Sage Publications: London.
Yin, R. K. (2012), Applications of case study research, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Zhang, X. (2005), “Critical success factors for public private partnerships in infrastructure
development”, Journal of Construction Engineering and Mangement, ASCE, Vol. 131
No. 1, pp. 3-14.