Task 3a): Identify the problems/issues, aim, objectives, methodology and findings of the research based on five (5)

articles from refereed

journals.

1. Constraints in implementing Public Private Partnership (PPP) in Malaysia

Author’s surname Problem statement/ Aim Objectives Methodology Findings

(year) issues

Azzahra Haris F. The main reason First, it intends to Investigating the A questionnaire survey The overall results show
(2014) why the scrutinize the factors hindering the was used to elicit the that “lengthy delays in
Government opted challenges in adoption of PPP in perceptions of the public negotiation”, “lack of
to implement implementing Public Malaysia, and and private sectors government guidelines
government projects Private Partnership evaluating the concerning the and procedures on PPP”,
through PPP is (PPP) by examining differences in the constraints of PPP “higher charge to direct
because the private the factors that hinder factors, as implementation in users”, “lengthy delays
sector is claimed to the successful perceived by the Malaysia. A total of 122 because of political
have more skills adoption of PPP in two key players usable responses were debate” and “confusion
and expertise Malaysia. Second, it (public and private obtained, which were over government
to efficiently design, aims to investigate the sectors). analysed using Statistical objectives and evaluation
construct, operate differences in the Package for Social criteria” are the top five
and maintain the perceptions of the Sciences software. The constraints for adopting
projects (Li et al., government and the mean score and mean PPP in Malaysia. In terms
2005; private sector score ranking were used of the differences in the

4
Li, 2003; Akintoye et pertaining to the to examine the perceptions between the
al., 2003). However, hindrance factors. importance of the public and
there are also hindrance factors based private sector groups, the
constraints that on the overall responses statistical test results
hinder the as well as on the indicate that there are only
successful respective responses of significant differences in
implementation of the public and the private the perceptions for two
PPP projects sectors. An independent hindrance factors.
through the sample t-test was used to
possibility of project examine the differences
default, projects in the perceptions
completed at a between the two sectors
higher cost to
the Government
and where value for
money (VFM) is not
realised (Cheung et
al., 2009)

5
2. Drivers of value for money public private partnership projects in Malaysia

6
Author’s surname Problem statement/ Aim Objectives Methodology Findings
(year) issues
Ismail S. (2013) PPP is expected to The purpose of this The present study A questionnaire survey The results reveal that two
provide better VFM paper are twofold. focuses on the was used to elicit the factors are perceived as
as it is the private First, it aims to determinants for perceptions of the public “most important” to
sector that normally investigate the factors VFM as perceived and private sectors enhance the achievement
bears significant that enhance the VFM by key players in concerning the VFM of VFM for PPP
responsibility in a achieved from PPP PPP that are public drivers for PPP projects in implementation in
PPP contract and is projects in Malaysia. and private sectors Malaysia; 122 usable Malaysia – “private sector
perceived as being in ensuring optimum responses were obtained technical innovation” and
Second, it aims to
more innovative achievement of and analysed using SPSS “competitive tender”. In
examine the
and efficient in VFM from PPP to rank the importance of terms of the differences in
differences in the
meeting the needs projects in Malaysia. the factors and to the perceptions of the
perceptions of public
of the customers examine the differences public and private sectors
and private sectors
(Treasury in the perceptions concerning the level of
pertaining to the VFM
Taskforce, 1999a, between the government importance of the VFM
factors of PPP
b). In Malaysia, and private sectors.in the drivers, the results reveal
implementation in
PPP was perceptions between the that there are significant
Malaysia.
introduced to two sectors. differences for half of the
streamline the VFM factors.

7
procurement
process of the
privatisation
programme in order
to ensure better
VFM is achieved
from the public
infrastructure and
facilities provided
via PPP (Ninth
Malaysia Plan,
2006; Takim et al.,
2009).

8
3. Rationales for public private partnership (PPP) implementation in Malaysia

9
Author’s surname Problem statement/ Aim Objectives Methodology Findings
(year) issues

Azzahra Haris F. PFI emphasizes This paper aims to, To examine the A questionnaire survey Results show that “to
(2014) streamlining the first, examine the rationales for PPP captured the perceptions enhance private sector
privatization policy rationale for implementation in of the public and private involvement in economic
and the greater implementation of Malaysia based on sectors concerning the development” is the only
involvement of public private the perceptions of rationales for PPP rationale that was rated as
private sector partnerships (PPP) in the key parties implementation in most important by all
providers in Malaysia. involved in PPP, Malaysia. Of 250 respondents. While other
providing public namely, the public questionnaires rationales were perceived
Second, it investigates
services (Ismail, and private sectors distributed, 122 usable as important, “to reduce
the differences among
2013a, 2013b, and investigates responses were obtained the role of the Government
perceptions of the
2013c). The time the differences and analysed using SPSS in providing public
public and private
saving can be used among perceptions to rank the importance of services and facilities” was
sectors, in relation to
to focus more on concerning the the rationales and to regarded as the least
the rationales for
the administration rationales, between examine differences in important rationale by both
implementing PPP in
of the projects and these two parties. perceptions between the parties. The results also
Malaysia.
on how to better government and private reveal significant
serve the public sectors. differences between public
and private perceptions for

10
(Coulson, 2008; the least important
Nisar, 2007; Abdul rationales.
Aziz and Kassim,
2011; Burger and
Hawkesworth,
2011).

11
4. Critical success factors of public private partnership (PPP) implementation in Malaysia

12
Author’s surname Problem statement/
(year) issues
Ismail S. (2013) Public private
partnership (PPP) is an
increasingly popular
choice for policymakers
in implementing
important public works
projects, especially in the
face of a shortage of
government financial
resources and where it is
necessary to counter
public inefficiency (Terry,
1996; Alfen et al., 2009)
Aim
This paper aims to
examine the
importance of the
success factors as
perceived by the
overall respondents.
Also, the study
intends to identify the
differences
concerning the
importance of the
success factors
between the public
and private sectors
13
Objectives Methodology Findings
The present study is A questionnaire survey The overall results show
distinctive as it was used to elicit the that “good governance”,
provides evidence perceptions of public and “commitment of the public
concerning the private sectors on the key and private sectors”,
success factors that success factors of a PPP “favourable legal
are critical for project in Malaysia. In framework”, “sound
Malaysian PPP by total, 179 usable economic policy” and
comparing the responses were obtained “availability of finance
critical success and analysed using SPSS market” are the top five
factors (CSFs) with to rank the importance of success factors of PPP
other countries that the success factors and to implementation in
have adopted PPP. examine the differences Malaysia. Although the
in the perceptions rankings of many factors
between the government were different between the
and the private sector public and private sectors,
there were no significant
differences in the
perception of the public
and private sectors
 concerning the importance
of the success factors
except for a few factors.

14
 5. Driving forces for implementation of public private partnerships (PPP) in Malaysia and a comparison with the United Kingdom

Author’s surname Problem statement/ Aim Objectives Methodology Findings

(year) issues
Ismail S. (2014) Public Private The purpose of this Realizing the Using a questionnaire The results show that the
Partnerships (PPP) paper is twofold. First, various factors survey, 122 responses top three driving forces for
is a form of it aims to investigate enforcing PPP were received from PPP implementation in
partnership the factors forcing the implementation in respondents in Malaysia Malaysia are “economic
contract, which, in implementation of different countries, and the responses were development pressure of
the broadest form, public private this present study analysed using demanding more
refers to any partnerships (PPP) in aims to examine the descriptive analysis, facilities”, “private
relationship Malaysia. driving forces for which included the mean incentive” and “shortage of
between the public implementing PPP and mean score ranking. government funding”.
Second, the study
and private sectors in Malaysia. In comparing to the Although comparison of
intends to compare the
in delivering goods, driving factors in the UK, the results between the
driving forces for PPP This present study
services and evidence from prior two countries found that
implementation in also to compare the
infrastructure studies that adopted a both countries regarded all
Malaysia to the UK. differences in the
(Friend, 2006). In similar questionnaire the factors, to some
factors between
many countries, instrument was obtained extent, as important,
Malaysia and the
PPP is defined as a and analysed. different countries have a
UK.
long-term business different priority for each of
relationship the driving forces. The

15
between the findings imply that the
government and unique nature of PPP in
private sectors to different countries is
provide public reflected in the different
services whereby motivation factors of each
the risks and country to implement PPP.
returns are shared
(Reijniers, 1994;
Grimsey and Lewis,
2002; Klijin and
Teisman, 2003;
Startin et al., 2009).

16