Sophie Sturup - University of Melbourne - Understanding How 'Partnership' Can Work in Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) – The Copenhagen Metro Case Study
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Sophie Sturup - University of Melbourne - Understanding How 'Partnership' Can Work in Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) – The Copenhagen Metro Case Study

on

  • 245 views

Sophie Sturup delivered the presentation at 2014 National PPP Summit. ...

Sophie Sturup delivered the presentation at 2014 National PPP Summit.

The National PPP Summit is the leading annual event for industry stakeholders to gather and discuss the issues across the national and global PPP markets. The 2014 agenda reviewed current and emerging financing models as well as showcasing best practice strategies for the procurement process, risk transfer and whole-of-life project management.

For more information about the event, please visit: http://www.informa.com.au/PPPSummit14

Statistics

Views

Total Views
245
Views on SlideShare
245
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Sophie Sturup - University of Melbourne - Understanding How 'Partnership' Can Work in Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) – The Copenhagen Metro Case Study Sophie Sturup - University of Melbourne - Understanding How 'Partnership' Can Work in Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) – The Copenhagen Metro Case Study Presentation Transcript

  • Dr Sophie Sturup University of Melbourne Understanding how “partnership” can work in Public Private Partnerships – the case of Copenhagen’s metro
  • The context for this study  PPPs about incentivising the parties to create VfM projects.  The problem with PPPs is there are fundamental differences between ambitions of the private and public sector  The solution is to reduce these differences by creating more „genuine‟ partnerships.
  • What is Partner  “One who is associated with another or others in some business , the expenses, profits and losses of which he proportionately shares” -1523  More recently partnership has moved to include concepts like marriage, association, player on the same team
  • What is Partnership in a PPP? Source: SGS Economics & Planning Pty Ltd  If this is the PPP continuum then where does partnership kicking in?  Can partnership be defined beyond the question of proportionately divided shares?  Suggestion – „real‟ partnership must go beyond the contractual relationship. Traditional Public Sector Delivery Service/ Management Contracts Joint Ventures Build Own Operate and Transfer Full Privatisation Traditional Public Contracting Investment Responsibility Government Role Public Private Provider Enabler and Regulator Lease Contracts Concession / Franchise Agreements
  • Copenhagen’s Metro – a potted history
  • Copenhagen’s Metro – the partners and their context State Transport Ministry 41% Copenhagen Local Gov. 50% Fredricksberg Local Gov. 8% Metroselskabet I/S Metro Services A/S ATM Ansaldo Copenhagen Metro Team I/S Parties to the City Ring Project
  • Is Copenhagen’s Metro a Partnership?  Metro has now had the contract to run the trains since their inception and they designed the system. – Their competitive advantage in any process is huge – But the government and Metro Services both say they could loose the contract  There is a very close working relationship right down to the service personnel – These people would keep their jobs even if management changed.
  • Conditions that foster Partnership  Both parties are committed to producing a brilliant system that works. – Ansaldo used this project to prove their business credentials.  Metro services was out to discover how to run a brilliant driverless train system – State Government need a project that was safe and cheaper than heavy rail. – Copenhagen Commune needed the land developed, and a system to improve transport  New land releases have been announced.
  • Pitfalls and Challenges  There is a risk the Metro Services simply becomes a quango – Continuity of employment for most employees. – Continuous renewal of the contract under „not broken don‟t fix it‟. – Should a new contractor be brought in just to prevent this? Would it make a difference?  What to do about the new ring line? Does it go to a different provider? Would that work?
  • Discussion – Questions?