See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/335777680

Development and validation of public-private partnerships framework for

delivering housing projects in developing countries: a case of Tanzania

Article in International Journal of Construction Management · September 2019

DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1661065

CITATIONS READS

7 973

2 authors:

Neema Kavishe Nicholas Chileshe

Leeds Beckett University University of South Australia
41 PUBLICATIONS 455 CITATIONS 385 PUBLICATIONS 8,007 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nicholas Chileshe on 12 September 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Construction Management

ISSN: 1562-3599 (Print) 2331-2327 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tjcm20

Development and validation of public–private

partnerships framework for delivering housing
projects in developing countries: a case of
Tanzania

Neema Kavishe & Nicholas Chileshe

To cite this article: Neema Kavishe & Nicholas Chileshe (2019): Development and validation of
public–private partnerships framework for delivering housing projects in developing countries: a
case of Tanzania, International Journal of Construction Management

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1661065

Published online: 12 Sep 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1661065

Development and validation of public–private partnerships framework for

delivering housing projects in developing countries: a case of Tanzania
Neema Kavishea and Nicholas Chilesheb
a
School of Architecture, Construction Economics and Management (SACEM), Ardhi University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania; bSchool of
Natural and Built Environments, Natural and Built Environment Research Centre (NBERC), University of South Australia, Adelaide, SA,
South Australia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
The supply of adequate houses is still a big challenge in many developing countries, particularly Public–private partnerships;
in Africa, where the population and urbanization rate is continuously growing. Increasingly housing projects; validated
Governments in many developing countries have adopted public–private partnerships (PPPs) to framework; developing
countries; Tanzania
meet their housing needs. However despite the adoption, problems still remain and the pro-
gress is slow. Various studies have examined the ranges of issues that have produced the poor
results in delivering PPP projects in developing countries. However; no tool (framework) has
been developed to address these challenges for a successful outcome. Therefore, the aim of this
study was to present a validated PPP framework which will address the identified challenges in
order to improve housing delivery. The proposed housing PPP framework was empirically vali-
dated by 12 PPP experts who were purposely selected in order to ascertain its applicability,
effectiveness and adaptability. The results of the validation showed that the proposed measures
within the housing PPP (HPPP) framework all rated above the test value, thus demonstrating its
viability. The implication of the findings is the applicability of the HPPP framework in assisting
the stakeholders address the existing challenges. Second, the framework has the potential of
providing valuable guidance and roadmaps for successful delivery of PPP housing projects in
developing countries.

Introduction Similarly, the urban population increased from 5.7%

in 1967 to 29.1% in 2012. Looking at the trend the
Many developing countries in Africa such as
population growth averaged nearly 3% annually while
Tanzania continue to lack suitable policies for hous-
ing development and this has largely contributed to urbanization grew by 5% annually. This growth has
the growth of informal and poor housing conditions. contributed towards inadequate housing for several
It is well known that, both urbanization and popula- decades. Likewise, the 2012 census shows that
tion growth has a significant impact on housing sup- Tanzanian population has tripled since 1967 and is
ply particularly in the urban areas. For example, in continuing to increase.
the overall trend in population growth in Tanzania Conversely, according to United Nations (2016)
averaged nearly 3% annually while urbanization grew report the share of the population residing in cities is
by 5% annually (Nnkya 2014; Wenban-Smith 2015). projected to increase in all regions but mostly in less
This increased population growth has led to the trend developed regions. For instance, other similar devel-
increase of housing public–private partnership oping countries are estimated to experiencing com-
(HPPP) within the Tanzania context. In particular, parable population growth rate, such as Zambia 3%,
since Independence (1961) the country has experi- Burundi 3.21, Uganda 3.26%, Angola 3.29% and
enced a large increase in population, which has Niger 3.88% by 2050 (Ibid). The result is that the
strained the available social facilities and services such available social facilities and services have been sig-
as housing. According to a study by Wenban-Smith nificantly strained. Besides, such rapid growth in
(2015), in 1967 the total population was 12.3million population and urbanization has contributed towards
and by 2012 the population grew to 44.9 million. inadequate housing for a number of decades. For

CONTACT Neema Kavishe neykluvert@yahoo.com

ß 2019 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 N. KAVISHE AND N. CHILESHE

example in Tanzania, this is currently projected at for Liu et al. (2014) which proposed a PPP framework
three million houses while the rate is growing at a designed for public rental housing in China, Liu et al.
rate of 200,000 houses per annum (NHC 2010). Due (2019) study which developed a rent determination
to this widening gap, the Tanzanian government has framework for rental villages and Le et al. (2019)
had to seek alternative ways to address this issue such which proposed a taxonomy for PPP risk classifica-
as the public–private partnership (PPP) strategy to tion, none of these studies developed a tool to address
relieve the existing situation (NHC 2010; Kidata these challenges or even guide the implementation of
2013). The adoption of these PPPs has more recently these projects.
been considered the next best alternative to delivering Therefore, in order to fill this knowledge gap, the
public services such as housing (Sengupta 2006; purpose of this study is to present a validated frame-
Sobuza 2010; Moskalyk 2011); as well as rental vil- work that will address the identified challenges in
lages (Liu et al. 2019), overcoming a country’s budget order to improve housing delivery in develop-
limitations (Rohman and Wiguna 2019) and develop- ing countries.
ing projects (Almarri 2018)
However, despite the adoption of PPP in house Literature review
delivery, the prevailing problems remain unresolved.
For instance, in Nigeria through PPP more high cost PPP implementation challenges
houses have been built (Ibem and Aduwo 2012) hence From both the existing literature and empirical find-
not affordable. Similarly, attracting competent private ings obtained as evidenced in (Kavishe and An 2016;
partners has remained problematic in developing Kavishe et al. 2018b), studies revealed that HPPP is
countries (Sharma 2012). Besides, according to Ngowi still in its infant stage in developing countries such as
(2006), PPP application in developing countries such Nigeria, Tanzania and Ghana (Babatunde et al. 2013;
as Tanzania is a new phenomenon and still in its Mboya 2013; Kwofie et al. 2016). Nonetheless, it is
infancy. Most of Tanzanian PPP housing projects noted that there is an increasing trend of HPPP proj-
have experienced failures (Kavishe 2010) and early ects in developing countries (Abdul-Aziz and Kassim
termination (World Bank 2016) due to the complexity 2011; Kwofie et al. 2016) yet very little success has
of PPP, with Tanzania also having its fair share of been achieved to date due to several challenges.
these challenges as evidenced by its higher termin- Various studies have also identified numerous chal-
ation rates (15 per cent) of the PPP projects in com- lenges in PPP projects (Sengupta 2004, 2006; Abdul-
parison to the global average of 3.7 per cent. As Aziz and Kassim 2011; Ibem 2011; Moskalyk 2011;
noted by Odoemena and Horita (2017), these PPP Ibem and Aduwo 2012; Al-shareem et al. 2014; Ismail
contracts in sub-Saharan Africa have higher termin- and Azzahra Haris 2014; Liu et al. 2014; Babatunde
ation in comparison with those in other regions. et al. 2015; Kwofie et al. 2016), where some of these
Furthermore, little research has been done to identify studies have specifically identified challenges hinder-
the main cause of the failures in implementing HPPP ing the success of PPP strategies in housing provision.
projects. Likewise, very few studies in developing This study builds on Kavishe et al. (2018b) whereby
countries have determined how PPPs can help hous- challenges in implementing PPP housing projects in
ing schemes and what standardized procedures can be Tanzania were identified and are reproduced here for
applied in order to facilitate the provision of more clarity as shown in Table 1.
adequate houses in developing economies especially Examination of Table 1 shows that ‘inadequate
in Africa. Through a detailed review of literature, PPP skills and capacity’ was identified and ranked as
numerous studies (Sengupta 2004, 2006; Abdul-Aziz the highest challenge in delivering HPPP projects.
and Kassim 2011; Ibem 2011; Moskalyk 2011; Ibem Based on this challenge there was a great need to pro-
and Aduwo 2012; Al-shareem et al. 2014; Ismail and pose in house training on the framework as a meas-
Azzahra Haris 2014; Liu et al. 2014; Babatunde et al. ure to address the PPP skill challenge. Apart from
2015; Kwofie et al. 2016; Osei-Kyei 2018; Kavishe and this first ranked challenge; the second through the
Chileshe 2018a) have identified challenges hindering fifth ranked challenges included poor PPP contract
the successful delivery of PPPs in various sectors; crit- and tender documents, Inadequate project manage-
ical success factors (CSFs) for PPP implementation ment and monitoring by public sector, Inadequate
(Osei-Kyei and Chan 2017d; Muhammad and Johar legal framework and Misinformation on financial cap-
2019) and attractive or motivating factors (Kavishe acity of private partners. It was noted that majority of
and Chileshe 2018a; Almarri 2019). However, except these challenges were more related to the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 3

Table 1. Overall ratings of challenges in implementing PPP housing projects in Tanzania.

Challenge Mean score Rank
Inadequate PPP skills and knowledge leading to poor planning and application 4.82 1
Poor PPP contract and tender documents 4.64 2
Inadequate project management and monitoring by public sector 4.57 3
Inadequate legal framework 4.54 4
Misinformation on financial capacity of private partners 4.50 5
Lack of competition 4.46 6
Delays 4.39 7
Corruption 4.29 8
Inadequate feasibility study 4.21 9
Differing goals between partners 4.18 10
Long term disputes and conflicts between parties 4.11 11
Inadequate government commitment and support 4.00 12
Insufficient capacity in procurement and negotiations 3.89 13
Poor risk allocation and management 3.79 14
In experienced private partner 3.68 15
Unequal qualifications and contributions of expertise 3.57 16
Poor enabling environment to attract competent partners 3.50 17
Inadequate mechanisms for recovery of private investors’ capital 3.39 18
High costs in procuring PPP projects 3.36 19
Source: Kavishe et al. (2018b).

Procurement (34%) and Preparation (32%) of PPP pro- developing countries namely, Ghana (Osei-Kyei and
ject life cycle as well as project management. Chan 2017; Osei-Kyei 2018), China (Qiao et al. 2001;
Similarly, other challenges such as the lack of com- Li et al. 2009; Zhao and Ying 2019), Thailand
petition, delays, corruption, inadequate feasibility (Trangkanont and Charoenngam 2014); Brunei
study and contrasting goals between partners contrib- Darussalam (Tutesigensi and Mohammad 2008) and
uted towards the failure of these projects. For United Arab Emirates (Zou et al. 2008; Almarri and
example, the issue of lack of competition has pro- Abuhijleh 2017). Table 2 presents a summary of the
duced negative results because previous studies studies as reviewed. This also includes the description
(Abdul-Aziz 2001; Li et al. 2005; Fombad 2013) have of the existing frameworks as well as the features.
shown that competitive procurement is significant Examination of Table 2 shows that most of the
towards eliminating corruption as it allows for trans- frameworks tend to address the following issues;
parency and selection of the best partner. On the Introducing/initiating PPP projects, risk management
other hand, Kavishe et al. (2018b) study demonstrated issues, sustainability assessment, CSFs and public
that, housing and construction practitioners in devel- engagement strategies. Barely any PPP frameworks
oping countries like Tanzania perceived the com- are available to address the existing housing PPP chal-
mended PPP benefits to be of medium levels. This lenges. For example, the framework proposed by
indicates that there is a greater need for the PPP units Osei-Kyei (2018) was based on CSFs and success cri-
to create more awareness on the PPP benefits in order teria and was further generic in nature. It also did not
to inspire both private and public sectors to focus on a specific industry. Likewise, the Almarri
collaborate. and Abuhijleh (2017) framework was equally generic
in nature for developing projects through PPPs, and
while the Trangkanont and Charoenngam (2014)
The need for the housing PPP framework
framework had the advantage of focusing on low cost
The need for PPP frameworks in both developed and housing PPPs, it was more tailored as a contractor’s
developing countries is well documented in literature guide towards decision making on risk response strat-
(World Bank 2016, 2017, Akintoye and egy. Therefore, the above findings in this section
Kumaraswamy 2016). For example, according to the which have been presented and published in Kavishe
World Bank (2017, p. 5), governments need proper and An (2016) and Kavishe et al. (2018b) as well as
frameworks and capacity to identify the projects that studies from other countries (Abdul-Aziz and Kassim
are best done as PPPs. However, according to 2011; Moskalyk 2011; Ukoje and Kanu 2014) necessi-
Akintoye and Kumaraswamy (2016), some of the tated the need for addressing the challenges and
existing legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks improve the implementation of HPPP through the
for PPPs are immature The review of the literature development of a tool (HPPP framework model)
further identified and summarised nine existing which will also guide and enhance the delivery
frameworks in which seven studies are from of HPPPs.
4 N. KAVISHE AND N. CHILESHE

Table 2. List of existing PPP frameworks.

Country Author(s) Existing frameworks Framework features
Hong Konga Cheung (2009) A best practice framework for
Focused to develop and initiate PPP
implementing PPP projects in projects in Hong Kong
Hong Kong
A Generic framework for Hong Kong
PPP projects
UKa Zhou et al. (2013) Framework for sustainability
Focused on sustainability indicators for
assessment for PFI projects in the UK PFI projects
the UK
Measures PFI sustainability performance.

Applicable to other PPP projects not
only PFI
Chinab Qiao et al. (2001) Framework for critical success
Specific to Chinese BOT projects
factors of BOT projects in China.
It is conceptual and not validated

The framework mirrors the significance
and characteristics of BOT project.

It provides a list of success factors.
Chinab Li et al. (2009) A framework of public engagement
Focused on public engagement in Chinese
for PPP projects in china PPP project

Features in 7 stages; ‘project inception’,
‘feasibility study’, ‘procurement’,
‘agreement and ‘financing’,
‘development’, ‘delivery’ and ‘exit’.

It ensures that the PPP projects meet the
interest of the general public by
capturing public opinions
Ghanab Osei-Kyei (2018); Osei-Kyei and A best practice framework for
Inform local practitioners in developing
Chan (2018) public-private partnership countries mainly Ghana of the best
implementation for infrastructure practices to be observed at each stage of
development in Ghana PPP process when executing
PPP projects.
Brunei Darussalamb Tutesigensi and Mohammad (2008) A framework for introducing PFI in
It provides a starting point on developing
Brunei Darussalam PPPs in Brunei
construction industry
Built on five key features: ‘organization’,
‘training’, ‘participation’, ‘implementation’
and iteration

Incorporates Brunei structure and systems
of governance
Thailandb,c Trangkanont and Contractors’ effective risk
It’s a contractors’ guide towards decision
Charoenngam (2014) management framework in PPP making on risk response strategy
Low Cost Housing projects
Specific to low cost HPPP projects
in Thailand
United Arab Emiratesb Almarri and Abuhijleh (2017) A framework for developing
It’s a generic framework to develop
projects in the UAE, a projects through PPPs
developing country
Focused to beginners in
developing countries
General Zou et al. (2008) A risk management framework for
Generic framework to Manage life cycle
infrastructure PPP projects risks in PPP projects
Generalb Zhao and Ying (2019) Method selection: A conceptual
Focused on identifying appropriate
framework for public sector decision-supporting method (DSM) to
PPP selection evaluate PPP contract in a disciplined
and systematic manner.
Notes: aDeveloping countries.
b
Developed countries.
c
A HPPP framework.

Research methods clarity a brief explanation is provided herein to

describe how the model was developed in the first
The study went through two main stages including;
place. The development of the proposed framework
was undertaken following four main stages as illus-
i. Development of the proposed framework.
ii. Validation of the proposed framework. trated in Figure 1.
Stage 1 dealt with an intensive literature review in
order to identify the literature gap which was the lack
of a tool to address the challenges in PPP housing
Development of the proposed framework
projects and also gain a detail understanding of the
As mentioned earlier, this study is built on Kavishe topic, identifying key concepts and variables. Stage 2
et al. (2018b), which presented the development of consisted of two activities, a pilot study and then the
the proposed framework in detail, but for purpose of development of initial PPP conceptual model, which
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 5

Figure 1. Development process of the proposed HPPP conceptual model.

were both supported by the information gained in procurement, monitoring and controlling within the
stage 1. However, the framework model development project life cycle. Through critical analysis of the
was also based on the information obtained from the identified challenges these five aspects proved to
pilot study. Stage 3 consisted of the main study, requiring careful attention because the inadequacy of
improvement of the proposed conceptual model and these features (skills, planning, procurement, monitor-
development of its control method based on the main ing and controlling) was determined as the main
study findings. This stage followed a two-phase cause of the challenges (Sengupta 2006; Abdul-Aziz
approach as demonstrated by Figure 1. and Kassim 2011; Moskalyk 2011; Kavishe et al.
The idea/concept behind the development of the 2018b). Hence, unlike other models, the proposed
PPP housing framework was based on the project life framework model as seen in Figure 2 was designed to
cycle approach. The adopted concept focused to facilitate the attainment of key features in order to
address the five key aspects: skills, planning, address the identified challenges and also enhance the
6 N. KAVISHE AND N. CHILESHE

Figure 2. Proposed PPP conceptual model for housing projects.

HPPP projects in developing countries. To illustrate point of view. For example, Tengan and Aigbavboa
this, Tanzania has been used as the test bed country. (2018) used eleven experts as part of a two-stage itera-
After the development of the framework, a map- tive Delphi study aimed at validating the factors influ-
ping exercise was undertaken as a verification encing monitoring and evaluation in the Ghanaian
approach (see stage 3, Figure 1) to illustrate how the construction industry. Likewise, Sodangi (2019) also
framework maps to the identified challenges with the used expert validation for the proposed framework for
advocated remedial solutions as presented in Kavishe providing guidance on the improvement of sustainabil-
et al. (2018b). For example, it was observed that the ity implementation in civil engineering practices in
majority 6.5 (34%) of these challenges were more Saudi Arabia.
prevalent in the ‘Procurement phase’ followed by the
‘Preparation phase’ with 6 (32%) and in third place
Validation of the proposed framework
was the ‘Planning phase’ with 4 (21%). Interestingly,
within the last ‘Operating phase’ had no challenges As observed by Hu et al. (2016 cited in Osei-Kyei and
assigned to it (Ibid). The significance of the mapping Chan 2018), the final step within the research process
exercise (verification process) was to check if the involves undertaking a validation exercise. Unlike
framework model was built right (Adrion et al. 1982; pure sciences and experimental design where compu-
Preece 2001). Furthermore, the verification process tation models as developed involves the determination
checked that there are no errors in the logic (Uslu of the limits of the parameters estimates, our study
et al. 2013), based on the nature of the pro- draws on the definitions as provided by Preece (2001)
posed framework. where verification simply means ‘building the system
After the verification process, the fourth stage in right’ while validation is ‘building the right system’.
Figure 1 is the empirical validation of the proposed Therefore, the significance of the verification proced-
framework model through the use of PPP experts, the ure was to check if the conceptual model was built
focus of this study. Such usage of experts as part of the right (Adrion et al. 1982; Preece 2001). Besides, the
validation process is encouraged and used from the verification process also checks that there are no
construction management research methodological errors in the logic (Uslu et al. 2013); based on the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 7

nature of the developed conceptual model. Therefore, Ibrahim et al. (2017) used six validation aspects in
validation is an important final process of checking their proposed Alliance Team Integration
whether the developed framework/conceptual model Performance Index (ATIPI). Equally, Osei-Kyei and
meet the actual requirement of the users (Preece Chan (2018) used the same number (six) of validation
2001). In other words, the validation exercise is aimed questions as part of the best practice framework for
at determining the correctness of the model (Adrion PPP implementation for construction projects
et al. 1982; Preece 2001; Yeung 2007). In addition, in Ghana.
validation also depends on the aim of the study Internal validity is interrelated to the idea of caus-
(Osei-Kyei 2018). Consequently, the purpose of this ality and is preoccupied with the derivability of rela-
study was to present a validated PPP framework tions within data while external validity is associated
which will address the identified challenges. with generalizability of research findings which is
According to Yang et al. (2011), there are two largely supported by results from a good representa-
methods used in the research validation process tive sample of the population (Lucko and Rojas
namely; qualitative and quantitative. A qualitative val- 2009). Essentially, external validity generally evaluates
idation approach, offers opinion-based data in form if the proposed framework is generalizable in
of words and ideas as opposed to numbers (Roschke Tanzania. Similarly, according to Lucko and Rojas
1994), whereas quantitative validation approaches use (2009) content validity focuses on evaluating whether
research designs that include numerical or statistical the content of a study appropriately represents reality
and objective data that can be used to test relation- whereas, construct validity seeks to measure whether
ships among variables (Roschke 1994; Yang et al. operationalization of theoretical constructs are appro-
2011). In this study, a quantitative approach was used priate. In other words, it evaluates whether the pro-
to validate the proposed HPPP framework. A validat- posed PPP framework can be generalized in Tanzania.
ing questionnaire was developed and its aim was to Therefore, in this section respondents were asked
evaluate the key aspects on each phase of the frame- to evaluate the proposed measures and control meth-
work (as seen in Figure 2) including preparation, ods suggested in the framework model, by rating their
planning and procurement, building and operating. levels of agreement using a 5-point Likert scale where
The questionnaire survey was divided into four 1 ¼ Strongly disagree, 2 ¼ Disagree, 3 ¼ Neutral, 4¼
major sections: Agree and 5¼ Strongly agree. The Likert scale
included and measured both the directional (i.e. by
a. Background Information regarding the respond- agree/disagree) and intensity (i.e. by ‘strongly’ or not)
ents experience. as suggested by Albaum (1997, pp. 332). Drawing
b. An overview to the conceptual model. upon (Kumaraswamy and Anvuur 2008; Cheung
c. Key concepts and specific validation questions. 2009) who adopted a similar scale, set a score above
d. General/overall validation questions. ‘3’ would signify satisfactory (good) solution towards
an identified challenge. Finally the last section of the
The first section asked the respondents to provide questionnaire contained general validation questions
their demographic information such as their experi- which enquired on the overall applicability of the
ence in PPP projects/research, current position in the framework model and suggestions for improvement.
PPP projects, location/country, education qualification
to mention a few. The second section provided brief
Sampling PPP experts (survey respondents) for
overview of how the proposed model was developed.
framework validation
The third section contained the key concepts of the
framework whereby validation questions were Purposive sampling was used to select the survey
attached in the end of each key concept. Therefore, respondents for the validation process in order to
seven validation questions which relate to five key obtain valid and relevant information needed. The
features (skills, planning, procurement, monitoring purposive sampling technique is a non-probability
and controlling) within the framework model were sampling approach which is based on the deliberate
designed and used as a tool to assess the following selection of a respondent due to the qualities the
validity aspects; internal validity, external validity, respondent possesses. It is considered most effective
content validity and construct validity. Such usage of when a researcher wants to study a sample of popula-
validation aspects or questions is not uncommon in tion with certain knowledge. Therefore, based on this
construction management research. For example, study, not all building construction participants are
8 N. KAVISHE AND N. CHILESHE

familiar with PPP as it is still a new approach in development (providing information/data) and valid-
developing countries such as Tanzania. Moreover the ation despite the noted disadvantages of biasness.
purposive sampling approach has been considered And also, the fact that the expert has participated in
appropriate and widely adopted by other researchers the model development, there is possibility that over-
in PPP research studies example (Zhang 2005; Liu looked assumptions continue to be unnoticed since
and Wilkinson 2011; Trangkanont and Charoenngam the expert may appear to be too close to notice incon-
2014; Babatunde et al. 2015; Osei-Kyei et al. 2017). sistencies or incompleteness. However, the key advan-
This is because PPP practices and markets in many tage to using same expert is that, the effort and
countries’ are still emerging in many developing participation captures their expertise.
countries (World Bank 2015). Conversely, the usage of a different expert offers
benefits such as the possibility for a different view of
Three–staged sampling approach the problem which may create awareness of unstated
In this study, a three-staged sampling approach was assumptions in the proposed framework (O’leary
adopted in selecting potential respondents. 1991). For that reasons both same experts from
whom knowledge/information was gathered and dif-

First, it was important to comprehend who quali- ferent expert than from whom the knowledge was
fies to validate the model prior to selecting them. gathered were both considered and purposely selected.

Second, pre-defined criteria as described below Further, two main criteria also similar to those
were used to identify initial prospective respondents. adopted by Osei-Kyei and Chan (2018) study which

At the third stage, the identified respondents were aimed at developing (and validating) a best practice
requested to recommend potential colleagues who framework for public-private partnership implementa-
may be willing to take part in this study tion for construction projects in developing countries;
the case of Ghana were used including;
In stage 1 through literature review, O’leary (1991,
pp. 9–10) identified various types of validators that
Respondents needed to have adequate knowledge
could be used in validating a system or a in PPP.
model including:
Respondents needed to have either hands-on
experience in PPP projects or research.

Same expert from whom knowledge/information In addition to the above criteria, the following cri-
was gathered during the study. terion was also incorporated:

Different expert than from whom the knowledge
Respondents needed to be involved in the PPP
was gathered. housing projects.

End-user.

Knowledge engineer. Therefore, based on these criteria, potential survey

Sponsor of the project. respondents were traced and identified from relevant

Independent validator. peer-reviewed publication, dedicated public and pri-
vate institutions (Osei-Kyei and Chan 2018) PPP
Based on the nature of the current study as previ- units and ongoing PPP housing projects. Finally the
ously mentioned (PPP being a new concept) and the selected respondents were invited through emails
type of framework developed, the approaches involv- (Ameyaw and Chan 2015; Osei-Kyei and Chan 2017a,
ing experts were considered the most appropriate cat- 2017b, 2017c).
egory for its validation. Hence, the first two categories
of validator, as listed above, were considered more
Survey respondents
appropriate. End-users, therefore, would not be the
right option due to lack of PPP knowledge. A total of 48 potential experts from various countries
While a similar study such as Cheung (2009) have including Tanzania, who met the specified criterion
suggested against using the same participants or were identified. Invitation emails enquiring whether
respondents in the development of the model and val- they were available and willing to complete an email-
idation process, there is nevertheless two different based and survey-based questionnaire to validate the
schools of thought regarding this aspect. For instance, proposed housing PPP framework were sent to them.
according to O’leary (1991) it is permissible for the The email explained the purpose and requirements of
same respondents/experts to be involved in the the research, moreover a consent form was attached
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 9

for the respondents who are willing to participate to

Type of PPP projects
mostly involved last

Transport and housing

Transport and housing

sign and return via email before receiving the

shopping complex
Transport and school

Transport, housing,

Hospital, transport
questionnaires.
5 years

and school
Subsequently, only 16 PPP experts signed the
Housing consent forms, expressing willingness and availability
Housing

Housing

Housing

Housing

Housing
Housing
to participate in the study. This sample size is clari-
fied by these two reasons:

Some of the obtained email addresses were out-

Experience with
HPPP projects

dated thus, some of the invitation emails were

not delivered.

Some of the experts simply did not respond while
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes
Yes
No

No

others did but were not willing due to their busy

schedule/commitments to other duties and/or
Formal education

limited experience in housing PPPs.

on PPP

Validating questionnaires and the proposed

framework were administered between May and
Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes
Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes
No

No

No

June 2017 to the willing respondents. Despite the

number of reminders sent only 12 responses were
Quantity surveyor

Quantity surveyor

Quantity surveyor

Quantity surveyor

Quantity surveyor
Quantity surveyor

received. According to (Ameyaw and Chan 2015;

Professional
background

Strategy expert

Osei-Kyei and Chan 2017b) surveys conducted

Economist

Economist
Architect

Architect
Engineer

through ‘email’ usually results in low response rates

in comparison to face by face or hand delivery.
Their demographic information is shown in Table 3.
Examination of Table 3 illustrates that most of
Education level

the respondents 83% (10 of 12) had prior experience

with housing PPP projects’ and 75% (9 of 12) had
PhD
PhD

PhD
PhD

PhD
MSc

MSc

Msc

Msc

Msc
Msc

‘formal education on PPP’. These findings demon-

Bsc

strate that the respondents had the necessary know-

ledge acquired through formal education and
Experience

experience, hence satisfied and met the set criteria

(years)
11–15
5–10

>15

5–10
<5
5–10

>15

<5

5–10
>15

>15
>15

thus rendering the authenticity and genuineness of

the respondents’ responses (Osei-Kyei 2018).
Similarly, all the respondents proved to have a
minimum of Bachelor degree level of education with
Table 3. Profile of PPP experts for the validation process.

half (50%, 6 of 12) having Master’s degree qualifica-

and private

and private

and Private
Sector

tions whereas 42% (5 of 12) had PhD qualifications.

University
University

University
Private

Most importantly Table 3 demonstrates that

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public
Public

Public

respondents possessed rich experience in PPP

Notes: aRespondents from developing countries.

research and/or industry, as only 2 respondent had

less than 5 years of experience. Furthermore, it was
Current position

and researcher

and researcher

and researcher
Project manager

Researcher/PPP

noted that respondents were obtained from different

Public partner

Public partner
consultant
PPP advisor

advisor/
Researcher
Researcher
Consultant

Consultant

Consultant

Consultant

countries representing both developing and devel-

Financer

oped economies. The significance of their countries

(Nigeria, UK, Hong Kong, South Africa and Ghana)
is based on the level of maturity of PPP projects
South Africa
Hong Kong

undertaken in those Countries. For instance, globally

Country

Tanzania

Tanzania
Tanzania

Tanzania
Tanzania
Nigeria
Nigeria

Nigeria

the UK is considered as the pioneer and the leading

Ghana
UK

in PPPs (Biginas and Sindakis 2015; Lop et al. 2016;

Sadeghi et al. 2016). Likewise according to (Osei-
10a

11a
12a
No

Kyei and Chan 2017b) Hong Kong, is evidenced to

1a
2a

5a
6a

7a

8a
a
3

9
10 N. KAVISHE AND N. CHILESHE

Table 4. Results of the validation questionnaire survey.

Respondents
Phase Validation criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Meana
1-Preparation In house steering committee 4 5 1 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4.3
2 – Planning Detailed feasibility study 4 5 2 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4.7
3-Procurement Prequalification criteria prepared to 5 5 1 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 4 4.3
align with the project goals
3 – Procurement Competitive tendering and transparency 5 5 2 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 4.5
4 – Building Two tier monitoring mechanisms 4 5 2 5 5 4 3 4 2 5 4 3 3.8
5 – Operation Establishing a database 4 5 1 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4.3
5 – Operation Establishing a joint account 4 4 3 2 2 3 5 4 5 5 4 3 3.7
Notes: aMean score where 1 ¼ Strongly disagree, 2 ¼ Disagree, 3 ¼ Neutral (neither agree nor disagree), 4 ¼ Agree and 5 ¼ Strongly agree.

have a wider PPP experience since it has practiced mechanisms’ and ‘Establishing a joint account’ were
the PPP concept for over two decades. Similarly, in the least rated measure with mean scores of 3.8 and
the African context, despite Nigeria and Ghana still 3.7, respectively. All criteria were considered satisfac-
being in their development stage in PPPs the two tory because they achieved a mean above 3 as sug-
economies are among the top five in adopting and gested in this study.
widely researching on PPP and are being led by
South Africa in the region (World Bank 2016).
Overall applicability of the proposed framework
Therefore, the above respondents’ profile made their
responses adequate, valid and reliable. Section D of the questionnaire contained general
validation questions which enquired on the overall
applicability of the housing PPP framework and sug-
Validation results
gestions for improvement. Table 5 shows the overall
Table 4 illustrates the results obtained from the valid- rating of the applicability of the framework.
ation questionnaire survey. The respondents were Three different questions were designed around
asked to rate the proposed measures on each phase of evaluating ‘applicability’, ‘effectiveness’ and ‘adaptability’.
the proposed framework (see Figure 2) using the 5 From the analysis, Table 5 illustrate that applicabil-
Likert scale as explained previously on the ‘validation ity, effectiveness and adaptability of the framework
of the proposed framework’ subsection. Moreover, a was rated at 3.9, 3.8 and 3.3, respectively, and with a
blank space was also provided beneath each question mean of means is 3.67 (Abdullahi et al. 2019). This
to allow the respondents provide the rationale for is equivalent to 73.4% average rating which is higher
their responses. For instance, if the response is nega- than the satisfactory score of 3 (60.0%) dis-
tive it was considered worthy receiving further details cussed above.
that will assist improving the framework.
The mean scores as illustrated in Table 4 were
computed manually due to the small sample size. For Respondents recommendations
example, the mean score was derived by summing up Table 6 presents the summary of the recommenda-
the scoring as assigned by the respondents and divid- tions obtained from questionnaire survey. In this sec-
ing by 12 (the total number of respondents). tion, respondents were asked three questions:
Respondents were asked to answer the questions
using the 5 Likert scale. Examination of Table 4 1. To briefly explain any deficiency observed in
shows that 100% of the proposed measures within the the framework.
framework were rated above 3 demonstrating satisfac- 2. To briefly explain the perceived major benefits of
tory solution has been proposed towards an identified the proposed framework.
challenge. The highest rated measure ‘Detailed feasi- 3. To suggest how to improve it.
bility study’, originated from phase 2 (planning) with
a mean score of 4.7. The second rated measures Examination of Table 6 illustrates that only four
‘Prequalification criteria prepared to align with the respondents (Respondents 1, 7, 8 and 10) highlighted
project goals’ and ‘competitive tendering and trans- deficiencies/commented on the proposed framework
parency’ each with mean score 4.5 while ‘Establishing model. Respondent 1 commented that the conceptual
a database’ had a mean score of 4.3. All of these origi- model [framework] should have identified financial
nated from phase 3 and 5. ‘Two tiers monitoring options for affordable housing through PPP as it is
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 11

Table 5. Results of the overall applicability of the pro- draw some lessons and test the applicability
posed framework. within their context.
Respondents
Validation criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Meana
Applicability 4 4 2 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 3 3.9
However, various studies (Sengupta 2006;
Effectiveness 4 4 2 3 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 3.8 Moskalyk 2008, 2011; Ukoje and Kanu 2014; Kavishe
Adaptability 4 4 1 3 2 3 5 4 2 5 4 3 3.3 and An 2016) have revealed that, regardless of the
Notes: aMean score where 1 ¼ Strongly disagree, 2 ¼ Disagree,
3 ¼ Neutral (neither agree nor disagree), 4 ¼ Agree and
challenges, there is some level of PPP awareness dem-
5 ¼ Strongly agree. onstrated, benefits and increase in HPPP projects and
political support. Therefore, the PPP approach has
targeting developing countries. This comment was great prospects to deliver better outcomes as opposed
valid; however, it was beyond the study’s scope and to traditional approach if the PPP stakeholders are
thus is considered as an area for future study. made aware of how to address the existing challenges.
Respondents 7, 8 and 10’s comments were taken into Nevertheless, through literature review, the study
consideration and improvements were made as evi- identified nine existing PPP best practice frameworks
denced in the section below. and conceptual models which were designed for both
developed and developing countries. These studies are
Improved and validated framework shown in Table 2, and from the summary of the
review, none of the frameworks were anchored on the
Based on the validation results and recommendations ‘PPP challenges’ The only similarity was that of
made by the team of selected PPP expert, some of Trangkanont and Charoenngam (2014) as it was
their concerns have been considered and incorporated focused on low-cost housing. Therefore, the validated
within the proposed housing PPP framework in order PPP framework has the ability and potential of deliv-
to further improve it. For example, ‘assessment of lev- ering the PPPs effectively and using the project life-
els of PPP knowledge and skills before training them cycle approach. Most importantly, it reinforces and
(in preparation stage), the use of output specifications responds to the call by World Bank (2016) study
(in building phase) and a two-stage bidding process which demonstrated that a sound institutional and
in phase three all raised by respondent 7 and two regulatory framework is critical for the success of PPP
similar concerns raised by Respondents 8 and 10 (see program. Likewise, recent studies such as Debela
Table 6) where accepted and incorporated as shown (2019) established that favourable legal frameworks
in the improved and validated framework (see Figure and good governance are necessary for success and
3). However, concerns raised by respondent 1 and 4 implementation of PPPs, while Babatunde et al.
(see Table 6) were carefully thought through but not (2016) used CSFs as the basis for developing a process
incorporated as they require more resources to be maturity and determine the current maturity levels of
accomplished and were beyond the scope of this stakeholder organizations in public–private partner-
study hence highlighting areas for future studies. ship (PPP) project implementation in Nigeria.
Additionally suggestion made by respondent 5 was However, none of the frameworks reviewed used chal-
sensible however through literature review it was lenges affecting the implementation of PPPs as the
noted that a number of studies and a framework for basis for developing them. This clearly indicated the
managing risks in housing PPP projects in developing existing gap which is the lack of a housing PPP
countries (Trangkanont and Charoenngam 2014) framework to address the challenges and furthermore,
already existed. using the country criteria as shown in Table 2.
Second, it was also quite evident from the review,
The comparison of the new validated framework to that the majority of the studies were none-African
existing frameworks specific let alone from sub Saharan Africa with the
Based on reviewed literature, there was no a similar exception of a recent studies (Osei-Kyei 2018; Osei-
housing PPP framework model with the following Kyei and Chan 2018) from Ghana. While these exist-
purposes in the past studies: ing frameworks also include one of the world’s big-
gest developing country, namely China, the socio and
1. To address the identified HPPP challenges. prevailing environments for undertaking PPP would
2. To guide the implementation of HPPP projects in be different from countries such as Tanzania hence
Tanzania, and similar sub-Saharan African coun- the significance of this study. Therefore, the proposed
tries sharing economic conditions as they could and validated framework could contribute to the
 12

Table 6. Summary of the recommendations made on the proposed framework model.

No Deficiency observed Major benefits of the framework Suggestion to improve the proposed framework
1 (a) It may need to identify financial The model has strong control mechanism (a) The model may recommend e-tendering in
options that will enable and promotes transparent at both the HPPP selection process so as to eliminate corruption,
developing countries achieve selection and operation stages. This will improve transparency and save time
affordable housing through PPP ensure most suitable partner emerges
since majority of its citizens are and outcome for PPP in housing
low-income earners.
N. KAVISHE AND N. CHILESHE

2 NONE This is a thorough framework for delivering The framework is very fantastic. I cannot fault it.
The framework looks fantastic – very HPPP projects. It can be used in
thorough and rigorous different PPP building projects because
it covers all activities in all phases.
Therefore, it provides a useful guide for
the successful HPPPs
3 NIL NIL NIL
4 NIL It will help to some extent on the practice (a)How can external stakeholders like commuters and land owners be managed
of housing PPPs within the framework, I think there should be some practices for that.
(b)Also try to include best practices which are very unique and specific to
developing countries if the framework is for developing countries
5 NIL Attempts to integrate the PPP Clarity be given to Risk Sharing and turn over/payback period
housing process
6 I think it is ok It will enhance the performance of PPP NIL
projects and improves its adoption in
developing countries
7 (a) Training should be preceded by The fact that the process allows the A two-stage bidding process can have a strong and sound winning bidder.
assessment of levels of PPP contractor(s) to be involved early in the
knowledge-base and skills and not housing project will remove the issues
just training – this is not raised; of ‘fragmentation’ in procurement which
(b) Output specifications should be for some time have caused so many
used and avoid challenges in housing projects
intermediate controls.
8 Minor flaws on technical terms used If properly followed, main goal will NIL
in phase 4. Instead of using the be achieved
word construction, the author
used building
9 NIL It can work in developing urban cities The conceptual model should suggest what type of projects
are best suited under the PPP
10 Revise phase 4 to read Easy to implement and follow NIL
‘Implementation’ stage instead of Reduces various risks and costs
‘Building’ stage Easy to assign roles and responsibilities
11 NIL Easy to follow and it is clear NIL
12 NIL Easy to follow and it has considered all It should be put into operation to further enhance it
checks and balances
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 13

Figure 3. Validated PPP framework model for housing projects.

effective implementation of PPPs and in so doing are not completed and approved then the project
address the Tanzanian housing needs. cannot proceed to the procurement stage; Phase 3
Additionally, the newly validated framework in this has competitive tendering with two-stage bidding
study is distinct to the existing frameworks as shown process and transparency; Phase 4 has two-tier
in Table 2, in the following ways: monitoring mechanisms to provide a double check
thus ensuring effectiveness and accountability and

It is grounded across the following 5 phases: prep- Phase 5 has the joint account with the inclusion of
aration; planning, procurement, building a specific clause in the contract to compel the pri-
and operating. vate partner submit monthly financial reports.

In terms of its purpose (addressing the housing
Based on Tables 4 and 5, the framework model
PPP challenges) by mapping out the most critical has been validated by a team of 12 international
challenges within the respective phases of the pro- and local PPP experts whereby the mean scores
ject life cycle. Also as a guiding tool through the were above 3 signifying a satisfactory solution is
alignment of the proposed remedial solutions/suc- proposed within the framework to guide and
cess criteria across the five phases. address the existing challenge.

Its key features (skills, planning, procurement, mon-
This study is also unique based on the compos-
itoring and controlling) are incorporated into the ition of the experts for the validation exercise. For
framework. None of the frameworks had exact example, the study by Osei-Kyei and Chan (2018)
similar features, however, some few were common. aimed at developing a best practice framework for

It consists of control methods integrated within PPP implementation for construction projects in
each phase (see Kavishe et al. 2018b). For instance, Ghana was localized by inclusion of only six
Phase 1 has PPP training programme so as to experts possessing adequate PPP experience in
ensure that only personnel with the necessary skills Ghana. In contrast, our current study is unique as
sets will administer such projects; Phase 2 has in addition to testing the applicability and work-
feasibility study report, value for money, afford- ability of the framework in the Tanzanian housing
ability assessment and PPP unit approval, If these market as evidenced by inclusion of 5 Tanzanian
14 N. KAVISHE AND N. CHILESHE

experts (see Table 4), the inclusion of the inter- test value (3) hence all criteria were considered satis-
national experts drawn from both developed and factory (good). The highest rated measure ‘Detailed
developing countries provided the opportunity of feasibility study’ had a mean score of 4.7 (very good)
testing the applicability of the framework in deliv- whereas the lowest rated measure ‘Establishing a joint
ering PPP housing projects in both contexts account’ had a mean score of 3.7 (good).
(developed and developing countries). Furthermore, results on the overall applicability,
effectiveness and adaptability of the framework model
Besides, based on the PPP expert opinion, the were rated at 3.9, 3.8 and 3.3, respectively, which are
framework can be easily adapted in various develop- above the test value of 3.
ing countries sharing similar economic and social
background by simply customizing it to suit specific
Implications of the study
features in a country such as governance system, cul-
ture, social aspects, relative size of the public and pri- The output of this study has several implications for
vate sectors, political stability and transparency of the stakeholders and government. First, the present study’s
government to mention a few. findings suggest that, regardless of the identified chal-
lenges, there are great prospects for the PPP approach
to deliver better outcomes if the PPP stakeholders are
Conclusion
made aware of the challenges. Similarly, by develop-
This study presents the first housing PPP validated ing a validated HPPP tool (framework model), will
framework (see Figure 3) which serves as a mechan- help to advise the HPPP stakeholders on how to
ism for providing practical solutions as well as reduc- address the existing challenges through its application.
ing the level of severity of the identified challenges Additionally, the validated framework suggests that,
preventing the delivery of adequate housing in in order to facilitate creative and innovative
Tanzania as well as in other developing countries approaches in motivating the private sector, the
with similar economic situation. Several studies have Government and the PPP unit should consider work-
studied a number of issues which have led to the ing closely together in order to provide attractive
poor delivery of PPP projects in developing countries. environment for such projects.
The multi-stage critical review and analysis of existing
studies showed that no housing PPP conceptual mod-
Research and practical contributions
els, tools nor frameworks have been developed to
address the existing challenges specifically to HPPP The following research; and theoretical contributions
projects for a successful outcome except for the cur- of this study to knowledge can be singled out:
rent study. However, through literature review, the Research contributions: The state of the literature
study identified nine existing PPP conceptual model review shows that no attempt has been made to
which were developed for the developing countries develop housing PPP conceptual models aimed at
(see Table 2). Notably, from the identified frameworks addressing the existing implementation challenges.
only one was specifically for housing PPP projects Therefore, this study makes significant research con-
and none was for addressing the challenges. This tributions by proposing the HPPP conceptual model
review further enabled the highlighting of the major (see Figure 2.0) which serves as a mechanism for pro-
differences among PPP frameworks. This clearly indi- viding practical solutions as well as reducing the level
cates the existing gap and the significance of of severity of the identified challenges that are pre-
this study venting the delivery of an adequate amount of hous-
The proposed housing PPP framework was empir- ing in Tanzania, as well as in other developing
ically validated by 12 PPP experts which included 5 countries. Such a validated HPPP conceptual model
local and 7 internationals from both developing has never previously been presented by other
(Nigeria, South Africa and Ghana) and developed researchers.
(UK and Hong Kong) countries. The local and inter- From a ‘practical ‘contribution perspective, the fol-
national experts had sufficient industrial and/or lowing two contributions can be singled out: (1)
research experience in PPP and were purposely Using the project life cycle approach, with associated
selected in order to ascertain its validity, applicability key features of skills, planning, procurement, moni-
and effectiveness. Basically, the proposed measures toring and controlling, this research has presented a
within the validated model were all rated above the conceptual model for housing PPPs (see Figure 2.0).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 15

The conceptual model does not aim to introduce new adopted PPPs only in housing project delivery. In this
alternatives but instead improves and builds on exist- study, only two public sector organizations qualified
ing practices to provide a valuable guide and road to take part in the research. Therefore, future studies
maps for the successful delivery of PPP housing proj- should be extended to other sectors such transporta-
ects. (2) The study draws on the project management tion and infrastructure.
principles and practices (Kavishe and Chileshe
2018b), by using the project life cycle approach in
Disclosure statement
presenting a conceptual model for housing PPPs.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by
the authors.
Limitations and recommendation for
further research
References
Despite various PPP research undertaken to date, PPP
Abdul-Aziz A-R. 2001. Unraveling of BOT scheme:
still remains to be a growing trend across the world, Malaysia’s Indah water konsortium. J Cons Eng Manag.
there is still more to be learned through the applica- 127(6):457–460.
tion of PPP framework models in delivering housing Abdul-Aziz AR, Kassim PSJ. 2011. Objectives, success and
projects. Similarly, literature review exposed that failure factors of housing public-private partnerships in
Tanzania lacks empirical evidence on how to better Malaysia. Hab Int. 35(1):150–157.
Abdullahi B, Ibrahim YM, Ibrahim AM, Bala K. 2019.
prepare the private and public sectors to adopt or
Development of web-based e-Tendering system for
implement PPP projects. Few studies in developing Nigerian public procuring entities. Int J Cons Manag.
countries have determined what standardized proce- DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1620492.
dures can be adopted to facilitate the provision of Adrion WR, Branstad MA, Cherniavsky JC. 1982.
more adequate houses. Validation, verification, and testing of computer software.
Therefore, the real application of the validated ACM Comput Surv. 14(2):159–192.
Akintoye A, Kumaraswamy M. 2016. Public private part-
HPPP framework in the housing sector would provide
nerships: a global review, CIB Series TG72 public private
further information on its effectiveness. For instance, partnerships, Report for the international council for
organizations adopting the model could monitor its research and innovation in building and construction.
progress throughout their project life span and then Delft, The Netherlands: CIB General Secretariat.
compare the outcome with other organizations/projects Albaum G. 1997. The Likert scale revisited: an alternate
that did not follow the validated framework in this version. J Market Res. 39(2):331–348.
Al-Shareem KM, Yusof N, Roosli R. A, Abdullah A. 2014.
research. The differences obtained could be noted and
PPPs as a housing delivery for affordable housing devel-
examined for further improvements therefore; it is rec- opment in Yemen. Bus Manag Dyn. 3(8):1–12.
ommended that this framework should undergo further Almarri K, Abuhijleh B. 2017. A qualitative study for devel-
testing in the HPPP projects. Such experimentation oping a framework for implementing public–private part-
would facilitate its refinement hence increase the nerships in developing countries. J Facil Manag. 15(2):
applicability and reliability of the conceptual model. 170–189.
Almarri K. 2018. Comparative analysis of the value for
Second, during the validation of the conceptual
money factors of PPPs between the UAE and the UK.
model, one of the highly experienced PPP experts Int J Cons Manag. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2018.1544450.
queried the issue of training duration. Hence, in add- Almarri K. 2019. Perceptions of the attractive factors for
ition to providing training to public officials, it will adopting public–private partnerships in the UAE. Int J
be worthwhile to explore how long it takes to develop Cons Manag. 19(1):57–64.
adequate competence in public officials. Therefore, Ameyaw EE, Chan APC. 2015. Risk ranking and analysis in
PPP water supply infrastructure projects: an international
future research would require longitudinal studies to
survey of industry experts. Facilities. 33(7/8):428–453.
take into consideration the time-lag factors between Babatunde SO, Perera S, Udeaja C, Zhou L. 2013.
the application, usage of the proposed model, adop- Challenges in implementing public private partnership
tion of a PPP project and the realization of benefits, strategy for infrastructure delivery in Nigeria. In:
as well as exploring the relationships between chal- Akintoye A, Goulding J, Liyanage C, editors. Body of
lenges associated with the implementation process. Knowledge: Proceedings of Public Private Partnerships
International Conference (PPP 2013); 18–20 March 2013;
The following study limitation is also noted: The
University of Central Lancashire (UCLAN), Preston, UK;
applicability of the proposed conceptual model is lim- p. 433–440.
ited to housing projects as the data collected for this Babatunde SO, Perera S, Zhou L, Udeaja C. 2015. Barriers
study were mainly obtained from organizations that to public private partnership projects in developing
16 N. KAVISHE AND N. CHILESHE

countries A case of Nigeria. Eng Cons Arch Manag. Kidata A. 2013. A brief of urbanisation in Tanzania. In:
22(6):669–691. Prime Minister’s Office Regional Administration and
Babatunde S, Perera S, Zhou L. 2016. Methodology for Local Government. Presented on 1 June 2013: Resilient
developing capability maturity levels for PPP stakeholder Cities Conferences Bonn.
organisations using critical success factors. Cons Innov. Kumaraswamy MM, Anvuur AM. 2008. Selecting sustainable
16(1):81–110. teams for PPP projects. Build Environ. 43(6):999–1009.
Biginas K, Sindakis S. 2015. Innovation through public-pri- Kwofie TE, Afram S, Botchway E. 2016. A critical success
vate partnerships in the greek healthcare sector: how is it model for PPP public housing delivery in Ghana. Built
achieved and what is the current situation in Greece? Env Proj Ass Manag. 6(1):58–73.
Innov J. 20(1):1–11. Le PT, Kirytopoulos K, Chileshe N, Rameezdeen R. 2019.
Cheung E. 2009. Developing a best practice framework for Taxonomy of risks in PPP transportation projects: a sys-
implementing public private partnerships (PPP) in Hong tematic literature review. Int J Cons Manag. DOI: 10.
Kong [PhD thesis]. Queensland, Australia: Queensland 1080/15623599.2019.1615756.
University of Technology. Li B, Akintoye A, Edwards PJ, Hardcastle C. 2005.
Debela GY. 2019. Critical success factors (CSFs) of public– Perceptions of positive and negative factors influencing
private partnership (PPP) road projects in Ethiopia. Int J the attractiveness of PPP/PFI procurement for construc-
Cons Manag. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1634667. tion projects in the UK: findings from a questionnaire
Fombad M. 2013. Accountability challenges in public-pri- survey. Eng Cons Arch Manag. 12(2):125–148.
vate partnerships from a South African perspective. Afr J Li THY, Ng ST, Wong KKW. 2009. A framework of public
Bus Ethics. 7(1):11–25. engagement for PPP projects in China. Proceedings of
Ibem EO. 2011. The contribution of public–private partner- Global Innovation in Construction Conference; 13–16
ships (PPPs) to improving accessibility of low-income September 2009; Loughborough University,
earners to housing in southern Nigeria. J Hous Built Loughborough, United Kingdom; vol. 1316, p. 46–56.
Environ. 26(2):201–217. Liu T, Chan A, Wang S. 2014. PPP framework for public
Ibem EO, Aduwo B. 2012. Public-private partnerships rental housing projects in China. ICCREM 2014: Smart
(PPP) in housing provisions in Ogun State, Nigeria: Construction and Management in the Context of New
opportunities and challenges. In: Laryea S, Agyepong SA, Technology; vol. 10, p. 573–581.
Leiringer R, Hughes W, editors. Proceedings 4th West Liu T, Wilkinson S. 2011. Adopting innovative procure-
Africa Built Environment Research (WABER) ment techniques: obstacles and drivers for adopting pub-
Conference; 24–26 July 2012; Abuja, Nigeria; p. 653–662. lic private partnerships in New Zealand. Cons Innov.
Ibrahim CKIC, Costello SB, Wilkinson S. 2017. Validation 11(4):452–469.
of a team integration assessment tool in road infrastruc- Liu S, Jin H, Liu C, Xie B, Mills A. 2019. Development and
ture alliance projects. Int J Cons Manag. 17(2):151–164. testing of a rent determination framework for PPP rental
Ismail S, Azzahra Haris F. 2014. Constraints in implement- villages. Int J Cons Manag. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2019.
ing public private partnership (PPP) in Malaysia. Built 1616412.
Env Proj Ass Manag. 4(3):238–250. Lop NS, Ismail K, Isa HM. 2016. Performance assessment
Kavishe N. 2010. The performance of public private part- framework for private finance initiative projects in
nership in delivering houses in Tanzania (The case of the Malaysia. MATEC Web Conf. 66(00049):00049–00048.
National Housing Corporation) [Msc unpublished the- Lucko G, Rojas EM. 2009. Research validation in the con-
sis]. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Ardhi University. struction domain. Construction Research Congress 2009:
Kavishe N, An M. 2016. Challenges for implementing Public Building a Sustainable Future; 5–7 April 2009; Seattle,
Private Partnership in housing projects in Dar es Salaam Washington, United States; p. 1449–1458.
city, Tanzania. In: Chan PW, Neilson CJ, editors. Mboya JR. 2013. PPP Country Paper-Tanzania, Paper sub-
Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference; 5–7 mitted to SADC-DFRC 3P NETWORK Public-Private-
September; Manchester, UK: Association of Researchers in Partnership Working Group. [accessed 19 Nov 2016].
Construction Management; vol. 2, p. 931–940. http://www.sadcpppnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/
Kavishe N, Chileshe N. 2018a. Driving forces for adopting 02/tanzania_27012014.pdf.
public–private partnerships in Tanzanian housing proj- Moskalyk A. 2008. The role of public-private partnerships
ects. Int J Cons Manag. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2018. in funding social housing in Canada. Canada: Canadian
1502931. Policy Research Networks.
Kavishe N, Chileshe N. 2018b. Identifying project manage- Moskalyk A. 2011. Public-private partnerships in housing
ment practices and principles for public-private partner- and urban development. Nairobi, Kenya: UN-HABITAT.
ships in housing projects: the case of Tanzania. Muhammad Z, Johar F. 2019. Critical success factors of
Sustainability. 10(12):4609–4623. public–private partnership projects: a comparative ana-
Kavishe N, Jeffferson I, Chileshe N. 2018a. Evaluating issues lysis of the housing sector between Malaysia and Nigeria.
and outcomes associated with public–private partnership Int J Cons Manag. 19(3):257–269.
housing project delivery: Tanzanian practitioners’ prelim- Ngowi HP. 2006. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) in the
inary observations. Int J Cons Manag. 19(4):1–16. management of municipalities in Tanzania – issues and les-
Kavishe N, Jefferson I, Chileshe N. 2018b. An analysis of sons of experience. Afr J Public Adm Manag. 17(2):29–31.
the delivery challenges influencing public private partner- NHC. 2010. The national housing corporation strategic
ship in housing projects: the case of Tanzania. Eng Cons plan for 2010/11– 2014/15. Dar es Salaam Tanzania:
Arch Manag. 25(2):202–240. National Housing Corporation.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 17

Nnkya TJ. 2014. Financing affordable housing in Tanzania: Sharma C. 2012. Determinants of PPP in infrastructure in
policy, initiatives, challenges and opportunities. 6th developing economies. Transf Gov. 6(2):149–166.
Global Housing Finance Conference; Washington, DC. Sobuza Y. 2010. Social housing in South Africa: are public
Odoemena AT, Horita M. 2017. A strategic analysis of con- private partnerships (PPPs) a solution [MBA degree].
tract termination in public–private partnerships: implica- Pretoria, South Africa: University of Pretoria.
tions from cases in sub-Saharan Africa. Cons Manag Sodangi M. 2019. Overcoming the constraints to the adop-
Econ. 36(2):96–108. tion of sustainable civil engineering practices. Int J Cons
O’leary DE. 1991. Design, development and validation of Manag. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2019.1569815.
expert systems: A survey of developers. In: Laurent Aa, Tengan C, Aigbavboa C. 2018. Validating factors influenc-
editor. Verification, validation and testing of expert sys- ing monitoring and evaluation in the Ghanaian construc-
tems. New York (NY): John Wiley; p. 3–20. tion industry: a Delphi study approach. Int J Cons
Osei-Kyei R. 2018. A best practice framework for public- Manag. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2018.1512353.
private partnership implementation for infrastructure Trangkanont S, Charoenngam C. 2014. Private partner’s
development in Ghana [PhD thesis]. Hong Kong: The risk response in PPP low-cost housing projects. Property
Hong Kong Polytechnic University. Manag. 32(1):67–94.
Osei-Kyei R, Chan AP. 2017. Factors attracting private sec- Tutesigensi A, Mohammad S. 2008. A framework for intro-
tor investments in public–private partnerships in devel- ducing the private finance initiative in Brunei
oping countries: A survey. J Fin Manag Prop Cons. Darussalam construction industry. In: Dainty A, editor.
22(1):92–111. Proceedings of 24th Annual ARCOM Conference; 1–3
Osei-Kyei R, Chan AP. 2017. Implementation constraints in Sept. 2008; Cardiff, UK: Association of Researchers in
public-private partnership: empirical comparison between Construction Management. p. 497–506.
developing and developed countries. J Facil Manag. Ukoje J, Kanu K. 2014. Implementation of the challenges of
15(1):90–106. the mass housing scheme in Abuja, Nigeria. Am Int J
Osei-Kyei R, Chan AP. 2017. Risk assessment in public-pri- Cont Res. 4(4):209–218.
vate partnership infrastructure projects: empirical com- United Nations. 2016. The world’s cities in 2016. [accessed
parison between Ghana and Hong Kong. Cons Innov. 21 March 2019] http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/
17(2):204–223. population/publications/pdf/urbanization/the_worlds_cit-
Osei-Kyei R, Chan APC. 2017. Implementing public–private
ies_in_2016_data_booklet.pdf.
partnership (PPP) policy for public construction projects Uslu B, Sinha SK, Ge S, Yadav R. 2013. A validation and
in Ghana: critical success factors and policy implications.
verification framework for robust drinking water
Int J Cons Manag. 17(2):113–123.
pipeline model prediction models. Pipelines 2013:
Osei-Kyei R, Chan APC. 2018. A best practice framework
Pipelines and Trenchless Construction and Renewals—A
for public-private partnership implementation for con-
Global Perspective - Proceedings of the Pipelines 2013
struction projects in developing countries: A case of
Conference; 23–26 June 2013; Fort Worth, Texas, United
Ghana. Benchmarking. 25(8):2806–2827.
States; p. 1246–1256.
Osei-Kyei R, Chan AP, Javed AA, Ameyaw EE. 2017.
Wenban-Smith H. 2015. Population growth, internal migra-
Critical success criteria for public-private partnership
projects: international experts’ opinion. Int J Strat tion, and urbanization in Tanzania, 1967-2012: Phase 2
Property Manag. 21(1):87–100. (final report). http://www.theigc.org/wp-content/uploads/
Preece A. 2001. Evaluating verification and validation meth- 2015/09/Wenban-Smith-2015-Working-paper.pdf.
ods in knowledge engineering. In: Roy R, editor. Industrial World Bank. 2015. Private participation in infrastructure
Knowledge Management. London: Springer; p. 91–104. (PPI), Regional Snapshots. [accessed 29 Mar 17]. http://
Qiao L, Wang SQ, Tiong RL, Chan T-S. 2001. Framework ppi.worldbank.org/explore/ppi_ex-ploreRegion.
for critical success factors of BOT projects in China. JSF. aspx?regionID=1.
7(1):53–61. World Bank. 2016. Tanzania economic update the road less
Rohman PA, Wiguna IPA. 2019. Evaluation of road design traveled unleashing public private partnerships in
performance in delivering community project social ben- Tanzania, Africa Region Macroeconomics and Fiscal
efits in Indonesian PPP. Int J Cons Manag. DOI: 10. Management Global Practice. [accessed 10 Jan 2016].
1080/15623599.2019.1603095. http://www.worldbank.org/tanianla/economlcupdate.
Roschke PN. 1994. Validation of knowledge-based system World Bank. 2017. Benchmarking public-private partner-
with multiple bridge rail experts. J Transp. 120(5):787–806. ships procurement 2017. [accessed 12 Aug 2018]. https://
Sadeghi A, Barati O, Bastani P, Daneshjafari D, Etemadian ppp.worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/library/
M. 2016. Strategies to develop and promote public-private benchmarking-ppp-procurement-2017.
partnerships (PPPs) in the provision of hospital services in Yang YN, Kumaraswamy MM, Pam HJ, Mahesh G. 2011.
Iran: a qualitative study. Electron Phys. 8(4):2208–2214. Integrated qualitative and quantitative methodology to
Sengupta U. 2004. Public-private partnerships for housing assess validity and credibility of models for bridge main-
delivery in Kolkata. International Conference on tenance management system development. J Manag Eng.
“Adequate & Affordable Housing for All” in Toronto 27(3):149–158.
from June; Citeseer; p. 24–27. Yeung JFY. 2007. Developing a partnering performance
Sengupta U. 2006. Government intervention and public– index (PPI) for construction projects – a fuzzy set theory
private partnerships in housing delivery in Kolkata. approach [doctoral thesis]. Hong Kong: The Hong Kong
Habitat Int. 30(3):448–461. Polytechnic University.
 18 N. KAVISHE AND N. CHILESHE

Zhang X. 2005. Criteria for selecting the private-sector part- Zou PXW, Wang S, Fang D. 2008. A life-cycle risk manage-
ner in public–private partnerships. J Cons Eng Manag. ment framework for PPP infrastructure projects. J Fin
131(6):631–644. Manag Prop Cons. 13(2):123–142.
Zhao N, Ying F. 2019. Method selection: a conceptual Zhou L, Keivani R, Kurul E. 2013. Sustainability perform-
framework for public sector PPP selection. Built Env ance measurement framework for PFI projects in the
Proj Ass Manag. 9(2):214–232. UK. J Fin Manag Prop Cons. 18(3):232–250.

View publication stats