Project Delivery Strategy

GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTUR E
Project Delivery Strategy:
Getting It Right

KPMG INTERNATIONAL
Foreword
In the current economic landscape, project owners are scaling down or

eliminating capital construction projects due to lack of financing, uncertainty over

costs, and concerns about potential delays that could impact the feasibility basis

of projects. Owners sometimes take these actions without considering the wide

range of project delivery methods that can successfully mitigate cost, scope, and
schedule risks. This paper discusses the project delivery options available to

owners and describes the factors that influence an owner’s selection of one

method over another. Armed with this knowledge, project owners can learnhow

the selection of appropriate project delivery methods can support their decisions
to proceed with high‐priority projects and programs.

We hope that you will find this publication insightful and its information useful in

tailoring a project delivery strategy for optimum outcomes.

Nick Chism Geno Armstrong
Global Head of Infrastructure International Sector Leader,
Partner, KPMG in the UK Engineering & Construction

Partner, KPMG in the US

2 P ro j e ct D e l i v e r y S t r at e gy : G et t i n g It R i g ht
© 2010 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services.
All rights reserved.

Applicability

• Power generation, transmission, and distribution

• Oil and gas production, transportation, and distribution

• Transportation networks (highways, bridges, tunnels, seaports, airports,

railroads, and mass‐transit)

• Health (hospitals, clinics, and emergency care facilities)

• Education (schools, offices, and dormitories)

• Sports arenas and facilities

• Art and culture (opera houses, museums, theaters, and cultural centers)

• Financial (banking, insurance)

• Communication facilities (telephone, internet, radio, television, cable, satellite)

• Water and wastewater

• Waste management (landfills, incinerators, and hazardous waste handling)

P ro j e ct D e l i v e ry S t rat e gy : G e tt i n g I t Ri g h t 3

The appropriate delivery
strategy will drive project
cost, quality of design,
construction, long-term
maintenance, and project
completion date.
4 Project Delivery Strategy: Getting I t Right


Introduction

Developing a robust project delivery strategy can significantly affect the success of
a large construction or infrastructure project. The appropriate delivery strategy
typically drives project cost, quality of design, construction, long‐term
maintenance, and project completion date. Project owners planning large projects
can improve their chances of success by performing a thorough assessment of the
key objectives for the project and the delivery strategies available to execute it.
The spectrum of project delivery strategies ranges from those where the owners
are fully involved to where their involvement is minimal. In practical terms for
example, the strategies can vary from those where the owner is an active
participant in the initial design phase through commissioning and operations to
those where the owner has minimal involvement and relies on a turnkey
contractor to coordinate all aspects of the project, including its long‐term
maintenance and operation.
The project owner’s objectives and organizational characteristics dictate the available
project delivery strategies. In all cases, the most appropriate delivery strategy will
also depend on the specific project and circumstances — see Figure 1 below.
Figure 1. Delivery strategies and decision factors

Delivery Strategies
Is the project... Traditional Collaborative Integrative Partnership
Large?
Complex?
Subject to a High Risk of Scope/Design Change?
Subject to High Interface Risk?
Decision Factors
Does the owner... Traditional Collaborative Integrative Partnership
Have Strong Project Management Resources?
Have an Appetite to Share Project Risks?
Have Requirements that May Evolve with Design Work?
Require a Strong “Oversight” Role?
Have a Pipeline of Other Similar or Identical Projects?
Need the Project Delivered Quickly?
Are... Traditional Collaborative Integrative Partnership
Lifecycle Performance Optimizations Important?
Limited Number of Participants/Contracts Desired?
The decision driver suggests that this procurement model is suitable
The decision driver suggests that this procurement model may not be optimal
Source: KPMG International, Project Delivery Strategy: Getting It Right, 2010

Project Delivery Strategy: Getting I t Right 5
© 2010 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG International provides no client services. All
rights reserved.
Selecting the most appropriate project delivery strategy is only one of the many
activities and decision points a project owner will face over the course of a major
capital project. It is, however, one of the most important, affecting not only the
project outcome but also the owner’s internal management, support structure
and the health of its relationship with all other project stakeholders.
The project owner’s culture has a significant influence on the appropriate choices
for project delivery strategy. The desire to understand and limit its risk by taking
the project “one step at a time” might lead the project owner to select a more
traditional approach. An active project owner with a “hands‐on” approach, who
doesn’t mind sharing project risk in a transparent and open manner, is likely to be
more comfortable with the collaborative and integrative models of project
delivery. If the project owner works in an organization with stable needs that is
looking for a solution that transfers project risks both in the short term and in the
long term, it may choose the partnership delivery model.
Each project delivery method has advantages and disadvantages. This paper will
focus on the factors a project owner should consider before selecting a project
delivery strategy for a large capital construction or infrastructure project. The
paper will explain how those selection factors can influence the timeliness,
quality, and cost of a large project and encourage responsible stewardship over
the long‐term.

Defining Project Delivery
There is no single industry definition for what constitutes project delivery. Project
delivery is not only about the form of contract used to shift or share the risks
inherent in a large capital project or the organizational structure of the project
team. Project delivery is about getting a quality project done — on time and on
budget — and, more often, taking a life‐cycle approach to make sure that the built
asset is maintained over the long‐term.
This paper assumes that all of the mainstream delivery approaches currently in
use can be placed into one of the following four categories:

• Traditional • Integrative
• Collaborative • Partnership.

The purpose for categorizing the delivery strategies in this way is to identify their
similarities and explain their differences. Any of the strategies can potentially
involve a fixed price, guaranteed maximum price, target price, or cost plus type
of contract.
The industry has produced definitions of various project delivery methodologies —
this paper has categorized some of these methodologies inTable 1.These labels
have value in understanding the general structure and the roles and responsibilities
of the primary players for delivering large‐scale capital projects. However, even
within the industry, there can be wide variations in application. For a more basic
understanding of the project delivery strategies available to owners and the factors
influencing their selection, we will avoid such labels in this paper where possible.

rights reserved.

Table 1. Project delivery strategies and project delivery methodologies
Strategy Methodology
• design‐bid‐build
Traditional
• multiple prime contracting

• agency construction management
• construction management at risk
Collaborative • design‐and‐build
• engineering‐procurement‐construction
• turn key

• alliancing
Integrative • partnering
• integrated project delivery

• build‐operate‐transfer

• build‐own‐operate
• build‐own‐operate‐transfer
Partnership • concession
• design‐build‐finance‐and‐operate
• private finance initiative

• public private partnership

P r o j e c t D el i v er y St ra te g y : G ett i n g I t Ri g ht 7

rights reserved.

The traditional model is fairly

rigid and sequential, with
construction following
procurement, which can only
be initiated after the
completion of the design.
8 P ro j e ct D e l i v e r y S t r at e gy : G et t i n g it Ri g h t
rights reserved.
Project
Delivery
Strategies
Selecting the most appropriate project delivery strategy can have significant
impacts on the cost, quality, and time for completing a large capital project and
encouraging life‐cycle maintenance.
The traditional model is fairly rigid and sequential, with construction following
procurement, which can only be initiated after the completion of the design.
The collaborative model allows for some overlap in the phasing of design and
construction with all three parties — project owner, designer, and contractor —
all involved at inception of the project. The integrative model builds upon the
collaborative approach in that all three parties share project risks and are often
linked through a common contract. The partnership model, used mostly in the
public sector, involves the public and private sectors working together over a
period lasting decades and puts life‐cycle, maintenance, and operational
considerations into a holistic framework. Table 2 provides examples of well
known projects where these delivery strategies are being used currently or
have been used previously.

Table 2. Project delivery strategies and representative projects
Strategy Representative Project
• Keystone Oil Pipeline Extension, Alberta to Oklahoma
Traditional
• New York City Water Tunnel No. 3

• Singapore LNG Terminal
Collaborative • Panama Canal Expansion Program
• New Doha International Airport, Qatar

• Heathrow Terminal 5, United Kingdom
Integrative • Gorgon Gas Fields Development Project, Australia
• Sutter Health Capital Program, California

• M25 Orbital, United Kingdom
• Kent County Council — Building Schools for the Future, United Kingdom
Partnership
• State Highway 130, Texas

• New Royal Adelaide Hospital, Australia


Traditional Model
The traditional method of project delivery assumes that the project owner has
completely and accurately defined the scope of the work through its design
consultant and that a qualified contractor will be hired to construct the work.
The project owner chooses a designer to develop the project requirements
and to produce the drawings and specifications, which are intended to guide
the contractor in executing the work.
The main contractor is responsible for construction. The construction agreement is
often based on a firm fixed‐price, and the general contractor receives periodic
payments based on construction progress.


As time has proven, the traditional model breaks down when the design is
incomplete or contains excessive errors and omissions. If the project owner is
indecisive and makes numerous changes to the work scope (also known as
“scope creep”), the main contractor’s ability to manage the construction phase
becomes more difficult. The contractors often respond to these situations by
requesting change orders and making claims for additional compensation. In the
extreme, the parties become adversarial, which may lead to litigation or cost
increases to both the project owner and the contractor.

Collaborative Model
Partly in response to the high cost of litigation using the traditional model and
partly because projects were becoming more complex, a collaborative project
delivery strategy developed in the 1960s and 1970s. The collaborative model
involved construction professionals in the early planning and design phases of the
project and eased the barriers to communication that existed previously between
the project owner and the main contractor.
One of the most well known collaborative project delivery approaches — design‐
and‐build —involves the design consultant and the main contractor joining forces.
By joining forces, the two parties can offer a “one‐stop shop” to the project owner
for delivering a large capital project under a single contractual agreement.
Project owners — particularly public owners of large infrastructure projects — are
often too easily convinced that collaborative approaches are the only way to
deliver projects successfully. These project owners may have had poor project
delivery results using the traditional model and they are looking for opportunities
to avoid an adversarial relationship with the main contractor. However, the
collaborative model is not a panacea and is not the most suitable project delivery
and contracting strategy for every project and for every owner.

Integrative Model
The integrative model of project delivery is a relatively new approach with risk
sharing features unlike either the traditional or the collaborative models. In the
integrative model, the project owner, the design consultant, and the contractor
work as one team to develop, define, and deliver the project.
The integrative model is effective for complex projects where the cost of the
project, time of delivery, and quality are equally important and not necessarily
known at the outset, and where collaboration and dispute avoidance represent the
parties’ relational aspirations. According to an industry proponent of the integrative
model, it “strategically realigns participant roles, underlying motivations, and
sequences of activities on a project to utilize each participant’s best talents and
abilities at the most beneficial moment. Success is project‐centric under an
integrated delivery approach and relies on collaboration. The focus is on collectively
achieving shared goals rather than meeting individual expectations. Success is
measured by the degree to which common goals are achieved.”1

1
American Institute of Architects (AIA) National and AIA California Council (AIACC), Integrated Project Delivery: A Guide,
version 1, The American Institute of Architects, 2007, 7. Web (accessed May 18, 2010)

rights reserved.

rights reserved.
Partnership Model
As defined herein, the partnership model
is a form of project delivery strategy
where the design, construction, and
operation of a building, highway, hospital,
plant, or other facility is completed by
one of the contracting parties for the
benefit and use of another, including the
general public. Typically, the party
responsible for delivering the project is
also responsible for financing the project
in whole or in part and, most significantly,
maintains the responsibility for the
quality of the infrastructure over the long
term.
One of the main features of the
partnership model is the transfer of
financing, project delivery, operation, and
maintenance risks to a private sector
entity. Hence, both the design risk as
well as the construction risk rests with a
private sector entity (other than where
changes are requested by the public
sector). The private sector entity is
incentivized to deliver the project on time
and to budget, as payment is typically
withheld until the facility is operational.
The private sector entity assumes
responsibility, and therefore the risk,
for the integration of all services.

The private sector entity is contracted
to provide the facility and lifecycle
maintenance for the duration of the long
term contract — between 20 and 100
years — and hence assume risk for
availability and lifecycle costs. The
private partner is incentivized via a
payment mechanism, which can be
based on user charges or flat payments
deductible for poor performance.

rights reserved.

Two Dimensional Graphic of Project Delivery Models
To better understand these project delivery models and how they differ, the project
delivery models can be viewed in a two‐dimensional graphic as displayed below.
Figure 2. Two-dimensional graphic
HIGH

Sharing/Trust between Owner and PD Team

COLLABORATIVE INTEGRATIVE

TRADITIONAL PARTNERSHIP

LOW HIGH

Sharing/Trust within the PDTeam


The vertical and horizontal axes of the graphic represent the degree of information
sharing and trust among the parties involved in a project or program. Information
sharing and trust are important components in clarifying the scope of a project,
understanding the parties’ motivations and expectations, and developing strong
working relationships over the course of the project — and beyond — in the case
of the partnership model. Information sharing and trust reflect how closely the
parties’ goals and objectives on the project are aligned.
The vertical axis represents the degree of information sharing and trust
between the project owner and the project delivery team, and the horizontal
axis represents the degree of information sharing and trust within the project
delivery team itself. The traditional project delivery model reflects the (relative)
low information sharing and trust among the parties, while the integrative
model is quite the opposite reflecting full information sharing and trust.
The collaborative and partnership models represent middle ground.


This section outlines the

factors that influence the
stakeholders and how those
factors can determine the
selection of the most suitable
project delivery method.


Factors Influencing
the Selection of a
Project Delivery

Strategy

This section outlines the factors that influence the stakeholders and how those

factors can determine the selection of the most suitable project delivery method.

Cost

For many project owners, cost is the greatest risk and determining factor in deciding

whether to proceed with a large capital project. This is not surprising, as commercial

projects are usually developed in the context of revenue generation along with
minimum acceptable financial rates of return. Usually, public sector projects must

also be justified through cost benefit analyses before taxpayer funds are expended.

Cost is a function of the project owner’s financial horizon. The project owner should

evaluate options based not only on the lowest capital cost, but also on the cost of
operating, maintaining, and replacing the facility over time. To complete the project

within the overall budget, trade‐offs may be needed to balance considerations of

safety, reliability, durability, and cost.

Schedule

Although cost is often the most important factor for the project owner, the

project schedule, or time to completion, is also highly relevant. For manufacturing

and industrial projects, the time to completion may be as important or of greater
importance than the total cost of the project because of market conditions for

commercial and consumer products. This also applies, for example, in the hotel,

resort, and gaming industries where expected revenue streams depend on

market timing and competition.

More so than for most other industries ‐ in construction time is money.
Construction delays caused by unusually poor planning and design, coordination

of work on‐site among contractors, late arrival of major equipment, site access

and security requirements, adverse weather, unusual or differing site conditions,

and other time related issues can quickly drain the project’s contingency funds.

Quality

Quality refers to project design features, equipment and material specifications,

inspection and workmanship standards, system redundancies and safety
requirements, and project life cycle considerations. Increasing project quality

beyond what is considered “standard” for the facility under consideration will

likely impact both the cost and time of construction.

P r o j e ct Delivery Strategy: Getting I t Right 15

Project Scope, Size, and Complexity

Project scope, size, and complexity have a significant influence on the project
owner’s selection of a project delivery strategy. Where the project owner’s scope
is unclear and the project requirements are difficult to discern at the
conceptual stage, there is little incentive for the designer and the contractor to
agree to a fixed price for their services. In cases where it is anticipated that the
owner will change the scope, add significant refinements or features to the
project, or modify the expected quality, the owner may be better off employing a
collaborative or integrative approach to project delivery.
The size of the project from an overall budget perspective can influence the
selection of a project delivery and contracting strategy. Large projects require
sophisticated management and project control structures which some delivery
strategies have built into them.
Project complexity is also a factor in selecting a project delivery strategy.
Complex projects demand the participation of numerous design consultants with
specialized experience. One delivery strategy can have an advantage over
another in coordinating the input of these participants.

Stability of the Owner’s Requirements
The stability of the project owner’s requirements refers to the degree to which
project requirements may change during the design and construction processes
and indeed during operations. If there is a likelihood that the owner’s requirements
will change, for example, due to stakeholder input, regulatory mandates, market
forces, or cost limitations and other economic factors, the traditional model and the
partnership model for project delivery may not be ideal. The traditional model
assumes that the owner’s requirements are fixed and can be competitively priced.
The partnership model assumes that the requirements, for example, the need for a
road connecting two cities, remain stable for a period of decades.

Allocation of Risk
The most successful projects typically result from the efficient allocation of risk
among the project participants. In construction, the party that can control,
manage, or absorb project risk is usually the best the party to assign the risk.

16 Project Delivery Strategy: Getting I t R ight


The project owner’s approach to risk allocation tends to influence its project delivery
strategy. Where the project owner’s scope is not well‐defined, contractors will be
reluctant to accept fixed‐price contracts. Contractors generally attempt to shed risk
during the construction phase and pass it on to the owner. In determining which
project delivery strategy to use it is important to understand the owner’s risk appetite.

Project Management Resources
The skill and experience of the project owner’s project management resources is a
factor in the owner’s selection of a suitable project delivery strategy. Owners that
have experienced engineers and project managers who are engaged continuously
on various projects are more likely to assume a more hands‐on approach.
Project owners with internal resources, or utilizing various specialty consultants, may
develop strong relationships with designers, equipment suppliers, and constructors
that carry over from one project to another. Projects, for example, in the power
industry, the oil and gas industry, and the environmental industry offer opportunities
for owners, designer, and constructors to execute multiple projects on multi‐year
construction programs. Continuing relationships may foster greater trust among the
parties and facilitate the use of collaborative and integrative models of project
delivery where cost‐plus and target price contracts can be used effectively.

Number of Contracts/Interface Risk
Project owners with limited contract administration capabilities may wish to limit
the number of contracts on a project. This is especially true for small to mid-size
construction projects where the internal costs of contract management is
excessive and cannot be justified from a budget perspective. Also, a large number
of contracts increases the interface risks among designers and contractors. Unless
the various contracts are aligned with one another, there is a risk of overlapping
responsibility, questions of interpretation, and ambiguities, which can result in
increased administrative burdens and legal fees.

Checks and Balances
The traditional model of project delivery offers the owner important checks and
balances. Because the designer contracts directly with the owner for design
services and, in some cases, additional project inspection and construction
observation services, there is a built‐in system of checks and balances that carries
over into the construction phase. The design team monitors the performance of
the general contractor to make sure that the drawings and specifications are
followed and that the design intent is carried out. In the partnership model, if
external finance is being used, this role is taken and enforced by the bank,
although the bank’s focus will likely be on the contractor’s ability to fulfill its
obligations during construction and operations.
In some collaborative project delivery models, these checks and balances are not
always in place, especially where the designer and the general contractor form a
single entity to execute the project. Cost and schedule pressures may cause the
design‐builder or Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contractor to
make suboptimal design or construction choices that may not be in the best
interest of the owner.


Publicly traded corporations
with many layers of
management may need greater
contractual certainty and
justification regarding the cost
of a major capital project.


Selecting the
Appropriate
Project Delivery
Strategy

Having considered the important factors that influence the selection of a particular
project delivery method, it is necessary to understand these factors in the context
of the project owner’s culture and internal capabilities. Is this a type of project the
owner is familiar with? Does the project owner have close relationships with the
market in the locale of the project? How involved does the project owner wish to
be in managing the delivery of the project and administering the contracts?
It is well understood in the construction industry that no single project delivery
method works best for all projects. Factors including the culture and experience
of the owner, project size, complexity, and location need to be considered.
Project Owner’s Culture and Internal Capabilities
The project owner’s culture has a significant influence on the appropriate choices
for project delivery and contracting strategy. An active project owner with a
“hands‐on” approach, who does not mind sharing project risk in a transparent
and open manner, is likely to be more comfortable with the collaborative and
integrative models of project delivery. Owners who complete numerous projects
per year using standard designs — for example, in the consumer retail, hotel, and
franchise food industries — are comfortable using the collaborative model
because they can predict their risk exposure with a high degree of certainty.
On the other hand, a project owner who completes one or two major capital
projects every ten years is more likely to be risk averse and want to know its risk
exposure up front before committing significant funds. The desire to understand
and limit its risk by taking the project “one step at a time” might lead the project
owner to select a more traditional approach. If the project owner is a public
agency and funding for a major capital project is limited, the agency may consider
the partnership delivery model, thereby transferring the risks of project delivery
and asset maintenance to a private partner.
Publicly traded corporations with many layers of management may need greater
contractual certainty and justification regarding the cost of a major capital project. This
may limit the project team’s ability to operate in an integrative environment and may
lead to the adoption of the traditional model of project delivery, or a collaborative
model with cost caps. Corporate sourcing and procurement policies may require
project teams to obtain the maximum degree of competition for major capital projects
and base the award on the lowest price submitted by bidders. Even if contract
awards on a “best value” basis are permitted, price may carry significant weight in
selecting the project delivery contractors. A major issue is that the performance of
the infrastructure over its life cycle is often ignored in the evaluation.


Real estate developers with significant in‐house project management and
procurement experience often utilize collaborative project delivery models.This is
because time is of the essence in most commercial development deals, and the
incremental risk of cost uncertainty in the early stages of a project is outweighed
by the potential cost savings generated by fast‐tracking the project delivery cycle.
Significant savings can be achieved by reducing indirect construction costs,
management expenses, and financing costs, and by shortening the time between
project initiation and the project’s revenue stream.

Understanding the Project
The type of project and its complexity in the selection of an appropriate project
delivery method and contracting strategy cannot be overstated. Simple,
straightforward projects, such as multi‐family housing, light commercial, and low‐
rise office buildings that are commonplace for general contractors in the locale, can
be performed using a traditional or collaborative approach with fixed fees or cost
caps. These types of projects can often be considered construction commodities,
and the low price in the marketplace usually represents the best overall value.
As the complexity and the level of quality required on a project increases, the use
of fixed‐price contracts increases the owner’s risk of overpayment. The increased
complexity and level of quality will usually cause the EPC contractor or main
contractor to include a substantial project contingency in its price to the owner to
cover potential estimating errors, price escalation, productivity losses, delays, and
other project risks, which may never materialize. In such a case, the EPC
contractor or constructor may earn a windfall profit at the expense of the owner.
In the most complex projects where quality requirements are the highest, for
example, on nuclear power plant projects, subsea oil field development projects,
and on large dams, bridges, and infrastructure projects where public safety is
paramount, the collaborative approach may give way to the integrative approach.
This is because the design cycle for complex projects is longer; numerous
consultants, specialists, vendors, and stakeholders are involved; higher quality
means increased time to fabricate, erect, and install project components; and the
construction cycle is also extended, which gives rise to the likelihood of labor and
price escalation. Additionally, the most complex projects are often subject to
increased regulatory oversight, inspection, and control.
For highly complex projects, the integrative approach seeks to replace the
individual project participant’s self interest with a sense of common responsibility
for the overall success of the project. And while fees may be capped, the project
owner generally commits to paying for the project participant’s costs.
In the partnership approach the public agency seeks to obtain the best possible
value, which extends not only to the completion of construction, but also to the
operation and life‐cycle maintenance costs of the project. Given budgeting in the
public sector, partnership contracts are often fixed price, albeit with a mechanism
to periodically align the cost of operations with the market in the course of the
operational period.



Putting It All Into Context
As these factors and analyses imply, no single project
delivery and constructing strategy is best suited for all
project owners and all projects. The responsible action
to take is not to default to any one delivery method,
but to consider all options. Owners need to
understand the potential benefits and risks associated
with each of the options and make smart decisions.
Consider the drivers for selecting a project delivery
and contracting strategy that should result in the
best project value. Consider the following questions:

• What are the owner’s objectives and goals
for the project?
• How skilled and experienced is the project
owner?
• What are the defining characteristics of the
project?
The purpose of this paper is not to conclude on
a single “best” framework for delivering large
capital projects that will work in all cases. Its
purpose is to make project owners aware of
the significant choices that are available for
delivering capital projects and the factors
that influence the selection of one model or
approach over another.
When selecting a project delivery strategy,
project owners with sparse industry
experience, especially those planning
projects outside the norm of their usual
business models, are well advised to
seek assistance from industry
specialists. Experienced specialists can
help the project owner to crystallize
project objectives and assess its
internal culture, risk appetite, and
level of experience and, based on
the selection factors discussed in
this paper, determine the most
appropriate project delivery
strategy that has proven
successful on other similar
projects.


Additional Insights

KPMG member firms provide a wide-ranging offering of

studies, analysis and insights related to infrastructure. To
access these reports and more, please visit KPMG’s Global

Infrastructure website www.kpmg.com/infrastructure

KPMG-Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU) Survey Series
During 2009 and 2010, KPMG International commissioned a series of surveys with the EIU into issues
and the way forward for infrastructure development worldwide. The three resulting surveys show a clear
consensus of opinion by business leaders, infrastructure providers and government officials that as
infrastructure ages around the world, we are making insufficient investments to protect our future.

Bridging the Global Infra- The Changing Face of The Changing Face of
structure Gap: Views from Infrastructure: Frontline Infrastructure: Public
the Executive Suite Views from Private Sector Sector Perspectives
A survey of 328 C‐level execu‐ Infrastructure Providers Survey of 392 public sector
tives and board members from A survey of 455 executives infrastructure policy developers
22 countries. The majority from 69 countries worldwide. and procurers from 50 coun‐
of respondents expressed The majority of respondents tries worldwide. The majority
concern about the adequacy, expressed concern regard‐ of respondents agree that the
quality and availability of infra‐ ing governmental effective‐ politicization of infrastructure
structure to support both their ness inhibiting infrastructure priorities and lack of funding
business growth and that of development. are the biggest impediments to
their national economies. infrastructure development.

rights reserved.

KPMG-PMI Study on Drivers Operating Healthcare
for Success in Infrastructure Infrastructure — Analysing
Projects 2010 the Evidence
KPMG in India and the Project This report contains some of the
Management Institute undertook most comprehensive analysis
this survey to decode the issues to date of PPP operational
inhibiting successful project performance. The report is
delivery. Includes the views the first in a series intended to
of over 100 top management highlight the need to improve the
personnel representing leading quality of information on opera‐
Indian companies across multiple tional performance and cost of
infrastructure sectors. infrastructure.

Success and Failure Delivering Water Infrastruc-
in Urban Transport ture Using Private Finance
Infrastructure This report examines the
This joint report with University risks and rewards of using
of London College explores private finance to fund water
findings from nineteen urban infrastructure, including how
transport infrastructure case municipal governments and
studies from countries around potential investors can benefit.
the world, including New York,
London, Hong Kong, Singapore,
Dublin, Bogota, Manila,
Manchester, and Bangkok.
Rail at high speed — Doing Global Construction

large deals in a challenging Survey 2009 — Navigating
environment the Storm: Charting a Path
Lessons learned from Portugal’s to Recovery?
first high‐speed rail project and Despite the deepest recession in
largest infrastructure PPP to‐date. 60 years, the construction indus‐
The report highlights key factors try is surprisingly positive about
that may be of interest to other its future prospects, according to
authorities around the world KPMG International’s 2009 Global
planning or implementing similar Construction Survey, involving
programs. 108 senior leaders from 30
countries worldwide.

rights reserved.
kpmg.com/infrastructure

KPMG’s Global Infrastructure professionals provide specialist Advisory, Tax, Audit,
Accounting and Compliance related assistance throughout the life of infrastructure
projects and programs.
Our member firm teams have extensive local and global experience advising
government organizations, infrastructure contractors, operators and investors.
We help clients ask the right questions and find strategies tailored to meet the
specific objectives set for their businesses. Our teams can help set a solid
foundation at the outset and combine the various aspects of infrastructure
projects or programs – from strategy, to execution, to end‐of‐life or hand‐back.
For further information regarding how KPMG’s Global Infrastructure practice can
help, please visit us online or e‐Mail: infrastructure@kpmg.com.

The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the © 2010 KPMG International Cooperative (“KPMG International”),
a Swiss entity. Member firms of the KPMG network of
circumstances of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and independent firms are affiliated with KPMG International. KPMG
timely information, there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is International provides no client services. No member firm has
received or that it will continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act on such information any authority to obligate or bind KPMG International or any other
member firm vis‐à‐vis third parties, nor does KPMG International
without appropriate professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. have any such authority to obligate or bind any member firm. All
rights reserved.
KPMG and the KPMG logo are registered trademarks of KPMG
International Cooperative (“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity.
Designed by Evalueserve.
Publication name: Project Delivery Strategy: Getting It Right
Publication number: 100728
Publication date: September 2010
Printed on recycled material.

Project Delivery Strategy

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Delivery Strategy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Delivery Strategy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTUR E

4 Project Delivery Strategy: Getting I t Right

Figure 1. Delivery strategies and decision factors

Is the project... Traditional Collaborative Integrative Partnership

Does the owner... Traditional Collaborative Integrative Partnership

Are... Traditional Collaborative Integrative Partnership

The traditional model is fairly

8 P ro j e ct D e l i v e r y S t r at e gy : G et t i n g it Ri g h t

Figure 2. Two-dimensional graphic

This section outlines the

14 Project Delivery Strategy: Getting I t Right

Project Scope, Size, and Complexity

18 Project Delivery Strategy: Getting I t Right

Rail at high speed — Doing Global Construction

You might also like