International Journal of Construction Management

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tjcm20

Critical success factors for Public-Private

Partnership (PPP) infrastructure and housing
projects in Kenya

Nicholas Chileshe, Carol Wambui Njau, Brian Kiptoo Kibichii, Lyn Njeri
Macharia & Neema Kavishe

To cite this article: Nicholas Chileshe, Carol Wambui Njau, Brian Kiptoo Kibichii, Lyn Njeri
Macharia & Neema Kavishe (2022) Critical success factors for Public-Private Partnership
(PPP) infrastructure and housing projects in Kenya, International Journal of Construction
Management, 22:9, 1606-1617, DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1736835

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1736835

Published online: 10 Mar 2020.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1929

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 15 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjcm20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
2022, VOL. 22, NO. 9, 1606–1617
https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2020.1736835

Critical success factors for Public-Private Partnership (PPP) infrastructure and

housing projects in Kenya
Nicholas Chileshea, Carol Wambui Njaub, Brian Kiptoo Kibichiib, Lyn Njeri Machariab and Neema Kavishec
a
School of Natural and Built Environments, Natural and Built Environment Research Centre (NBERC), University of South Australia, Adelaide,
South Australia, Australia; bSchool of Natural and Built Environments, University of South Australia, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; cSchool
of Architecture, School of Architecture, Construction Economics and Management (SACEM), Ardhi University, Dar es Salaam, Tanzania

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Despite the emergence of studies on critical success factors (CSFs) for public-private partnerships (PPPs) Developing countries;
implementation within developing countries, there is a paucity of studies that examine CSFs barriers housing; infrastructure;
within the context of developing countries, particularly the sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) such as Kenya. This construction industry; PPPs;
critical success
paper aims to investigate the perceptions of Kenyan public and private stakeholder’s concerning the factors; Kenya
CSFs to the implementation of PPPs in infrastructure and housing projects. A quantitative approach using
survey-based questionnaire is adopted. CSFs identified from literature review were empirically tested by
data collected using a sample survey of 27 Kenyan stakeholders. Response data was subjected to descrip-
tive and inferential statistics. Results show that “acceptance and support given by the community”,
“project feasibility”, “the laws, regulations and guidelines put in place”, “available financial market” and
“having a well organised and committed public agency” were the highly ranked CSFs. In contrast,
“effective and enough resource allocation and management”, “transparency and equity in the procure-
ment process”, and “proper and efficient training of employees” were the least ranked CSFs. These find-
ings can be used as a road-map for the successful implementation of PPPs, provides insights on the CSFs
of PPPs in infrastructure and housing projects across the Kenyan construction sector.

Introduction 30% of the population reside in the small urban cities (World
Bank PPI Database 2018). Accordingly, this has led to the neglect
The government of Kenya (GOK) has shown a growing interest
of rural areas and its potential, considering the rate of those
in public-private partnerships (PPPs) as a vehicle for the devel-
unemployed is quite high hence the need for affordable housing
opment of infrastructure and housing sectors. For the period,
that should be set by the government so as to accommodate
2012-2020, the total infrastructure investment needs across the
everyone within the urban areas (Wetangula and Mazurewicz
12 sectors amounted to USD 62,176 million, with the GOK pro-
viding USD 25,000 million thus leaving a funding gap of USD 2017) Moreso, the conenctions between infrastruture and the
37,000 million (World Bank 2016; World Bank PPI Database Kenyan construction industry (KCI) is more significant given its
2018). With a projected reduction in the funding gap for infra- contributions of about 7% of Kenya’s GDP and employs at least
structure estimated at USD 40 Billion over the next 8 years, the one million people (Wanjira 2016).
GOK is keener on PPPs as the demand for quality and affordable To redress the investment shortfall (current and future), and
from its citizen’s increases. Kenya also ranks highest relative to more so for the construction of infrastructure and housing devel-
the PPP investment (in excess of $8.5 billion) in contrast to the opment, most governments in developing countries are turning
neighbouring countries such as Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda and to PPPs (Akintoye and Kumaraswamy 2016). According to
Zambia (World Bank 2016). However, the majority of the invest- Akintoye and Kumaraswamy (2016), PPPs provide the opportun-
ment is in telecommunications, water, energy and transportation ity of delivering and developing stable projects that meets the
sectors. Conversely, as noted by Wetangula and Mazurewicz needs of the public more efficiently and effectively. A number of
(2017), the total population of Kenyan citizens has increased to studies have demonstrated how PPPs can be been used as an
49.7 million with a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 5.8% and alternative mode for funding of road infrastructure in developing
an inflation rate of 6.3% since 2016 thus leading to a labour countries such as Ethiopia (Debela 2019), addressing infrastruc-
force of only 18.66 million. In addition, the population of Kenya ture deficit in Indonesia (Ray and Ing 2016); and development of
has been projected to increase to 59 million by the year 2030 public infrastructure in Indonesia (Rohman and Wiguna 2019).
and 75 million by 2050 and with the infrastructure development PPPs have equally the potential for improving landscape quality
sector also being put in the frontline of the Vision 2030 projec- of modern communities (Jakaitis and Kazimieras Paliulis 2013);
tion board. The population growth is more significant in urban mitigating the effects of public monopoly in the provision of
areas, currently at 6% annually. The infrastructure and housing public functions. (Chen (2013); and preferred routes for govern-
is becoming a challenge due to the rural-urban migration where ments to develop infrastructure (Patil and Laishram 2016).

CONTACT Nicholas Chileshe nicholas.chileshe@unisa.edu.au

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
ß 2020 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1607

Likewise, as with other developing countries, these PPPs have a strategic phase where it is introducing legal frameworks, creat-
become very common in those developing countries, more so ing program ideas and centers for PPP units. More so, with the
Africa and Asia, to aid in development of countries such as exception of the Kavishe and Chileshe (2019) study which
Nigeria (Babatunde et al. 2016), Tanzania (Kavishe et al. 2018, explored the CSFs in public-private partnership on affordable
2019a, 2019b; Kavishe and Chileshe 2018a, 2018b), Ghana housing schemes delivery and focused on Tanzania, there is still
(Kwofie et al. 2016; Osei-Kyei and Chan 2017a, 2017b; Osei-Kyei a paucity of studies that examine CSFs within the East
et al. 2017), Malaysia (Muhammad and Johar 2018) and India African context.
(Kulshreshtha et al. 2017; Patil and Laishram 2016). Despite this The majority of the reported studies on PPPs in both devel-
PPPs growing popularity, there are limited empirical studies oped and developing countries have highlighted the importance of
around the enablers or CSFs of PPPs implementation within the legal framework as one such CSF for efficiency of PPPs in deliver-
Kenyan infrastructure and construction sectors. More so, as ing its purpose is the need for increase in financial injection
noted by Wetangula and Mazurewicz (2017), in order to redress (Yuan et al. 2010); and availability and effectiveness of proper
the effects of rising in population, it is important to have a better regulatory and legal framework for PPPs was considered as the
understanding of the CSFs associated with PPPs which underpin most important CSFs in the United Arab Emirates (Al-Saadi and
the effective implementation and delivery of the planned infra- Abdou 2016). Likewise, in Uganda which is a neighboring country
structure projects. Therefore, to bridge this knowledge gap, this to Kenya also identified familiarity with regulatory framework;
study is aimed at investigating the perception of PPP stakehold- perceived inefficiency of regulatory framework and compliance
ers on the CSFs appertaining to the implementation of PPPs with these frameworks significantly enhances successful implemen-
within the infrastructure and housing sectors in Kenya. The basis tation of public road construction projects (Mwelu et al. 2019).
for carrying out this study is to identify valuable lessons CSFs PPPs are also identified as mechanisms for governments to tap
for PPP stakeholders in Kenya to focus their attention on and into ways the private sector will benefit the public sector
also act as a road map towards successful delivery of their PPP (Babatunde et al. 2012).
housing projects. Despite the number of PPP-related studies undertaken glo-
The study is structured as follows: Firstly, the extant literature bally, few studies have been conducted to assess the viability/suc-
reviews on CSFs in both the developing and developed econo- cess factors of PPPs in the delivery of housing projects. Likewise,
mies as well as the knowledge gap is provided. This is followed some selected recent studies in developing countries for example,
by the discussion of the methodological approach as adopted. Ismail (2013) investigated on the CSFs for PPPs in in Malaysia.
Next is a discussion of the findings. The implications of the For instance, in Nigeria, the following studies such as Babatunde
study are in the second last section with the final section et al. (2012); Babatunde et al. (2015); and Dairu and Muhammad
addressing the recommendations and conclusions. (2015), investigated the CSFs for PPPs in infrastructure delivery.
In Ghana, Kwofie et al. (2016) studied a critical success model
for HPPP delivery. Equally, within the developed countries’ con-
Literature review text, recent studies, such as the work of Akintoye and
Globally, most empirical studies on PPPs in the built environ- Kumaraswamy (2016), have also identified several significant
ment have mainly centred on five themes: (1) risks; (2) relation- challenges for PPPs and directions for future PPP research. It is
ships; (3) critical success factors (CSFs); 4) PPP challenges and therefore evident that, despite the increasing number of PPP-
(4) financing/value for money. Based on the detailed literature related studies, limited empirical studies have been done within
review undertaken, it was observed that the main debatable issue the East African countries.
with regard to PPP was achieving value for money in PPP proj- Moreover, CSFs related PPP studies in most developing
ects due to the fact that, it is an expensive and lengthy procure- economies have also highlighted the government role (Babatunde
ment process hence requiring enough knowledge and skills in et al. 2012, 2019; Osei-Kyei and Chan 2015; Wibowo and Alfen
identifying best PPP candidate projects, best private partner, 2015; Ullah and Thaheem 2018). In particular, literature has
identifying and allocating risks to the party best able to manage revealed that, “good Governance”, “the need for governments to
as well as stakeholders’ management (Grimsey and Lewis 2002, provide political support”, “appropriate risk allocation and risk
2004, 2005). Furthermore, various seminal studies (Akintoye sharing”, “ensuring that procurement activities are done in a
et al. 2003; Zhang 2005 and Li et al. 2005) argued that, PPPs are transparent manner”, “strong private consortium” and
associated with complex negotiations, difficulty in valuing of “community support” towards such projects especially during the
facility management services, stipulating the quality of service, initial stages, are the key CSFs in developing countries. Such
identifying possible conflicts of interests among those involved in findings could be based on their social, economic and political
the procurement, and the public sector clients’ and incapacity to environment.
manage consultants as factors hindering the achievement of For example, Wibowo and Alfen (2015) study used grounded
value for money in PPPs. On the other hand, most Governments theory to investigate macro-environmental CSFs and key areas
worldwide believe that PPP is an effective way to decrease their for improvement for public-private partnerships (PPP) in infra-
financial burden hence the reason for its popularity. structure development, using Indonesia as a case study. The
Similarly, the majority of studies have investigated the CSFs study highlighted the importance of isolating the CSFs that are
influencing PPPs in the developed countries such as Li et al. based on the government from others based on its micro and
(2005) in the UK and Osei-Kyei et al. (2017) in Hong Kong. The meso levels. Other studies have also explored the challenges
majority of studies have investigated the CSFs influencing PPPs around PPP implementation (Kavishe et al. 2018, 2019a, 2019b);
in the developed countries. Despite the emergence of PPPs stud- performance indicators for PPPs (Hossain et al. 2019); and driv-
ies within developing countries, particularly in sub-Sahara Africa ing or motivational factors for PPPs (Yuan et al. 2010; Osei-Kyei
(SAA) and countries such as Nigeria (Babatunde et al. 2012; et al. 2014; Kavishe and Chileshe 2018a; Almarri 2019). The
Babatunde and Perera 2017) and Ghana (Osei-Kyei and Chan inclusion of China is based on the number of major infrastruc-
2015, Osei-Kyei and Chan 2017a, 2017b), Kenya still remains at ture projects in Africa being undertaken by the Chinese.
1608 N. CHILESHE ET AL.

Notwithstanding the advocated benefits of PPPs for both rationale for this approach is as provided by Rowley (2014) who
developing and developing countries, some different school of acknowledges that questionnaires are more appropriate measur-
thought around the PPPs success and failure have emerged giv- ing the frequency of occurrences of opinions, attitudes, experien-
ing rise to major debates on PPP projects success or otherwise ces, processes, behaviors and predictions
failure (Jamali 2004; World Bank 2016; Abdul-Aziz and Kassim
2011; Leigland 2018). For instance, Jamali (2004) highlighted
how PPPs have also become mired in a muddle of conceptual Measurement instrument
ambiguities hence burling the success and failure. Equally, The questionnaire survey as distributed to the stakeholders had
Abdul-Aziz and Kassim (2011) examined the success and failure two distinct sections as follows:
factors of housing PPP projects in developing countries Malaysia
as a case study. Among the findings included the success and
Section 1: This encompassed general demographics of the
failure factors not being identical. Due to the controversies and individual and organisational characteristics such as age,
mixed results of PPP success (World Bank 2016), recent studies experience and type of sector.
such as Leigland (2018) have emerged pushing a new brand
Section 2: This section was aimed at capturing the respond-
called “transformational” PPP projects which focuses on large, ent’s perception of the importance 17 CSFs. respondents
regional, or cross-border infrastructure projects as a pathway for were asked to rate their levels of agreement using a five-
enhanced success. However, the same study (Leigland 2018) point Likert scale where 1 ¼ strongly disagree, 2 ¼ disagree,
highlighted the actual lack of experience or non-existent with the 3 ¼ neutral, 4 ¼ agree and ¼ strongly agree. As recom-
regional infrastructure PPP projects in SSA which makes the mended by Albaum (1997, p. 332), the Likert scale included
uptake rather difficult. There are also a number of constraints and measured both the directional (i.e. by “agree/disagree”)
facing PPPs in African countries such as undeveloped business and intensity (i.e. by “strongly” or not).
environment, lack of knowledge to carry out PPP projects and Furthermore, this CSF scale was adopted due to its ability to
lack of legal of regulatory framework (Ferk and Ferk 2017). detect the feelings that respondents have about their attitudes
Table 1 present a summary of the selected studies as reviewed (Albaum 1997). Secondly, according to Dawes (2008), a scale
that have explored the CSFs influencing infrastructure and hous- with more response options produces slightly lower scores, rela-
ing projects in African countries and also include Hong Kong tive to the upper limit of the scale. Therefore the 5-point Likert
and China for comparative purposes. scale was selected over the 7 or 9 Point Likert Scale. Another jus-
Globally, most empirical studies on PPPs in the built environ- tification for the choice of the 5-Point Likert scale is reliability
ment have mainly centred on five themes: (1) risks; (2) relation- related. According to Hensley 1999, reliability increases as the
ships; (3) critical success factors (CSFs); 4) PPP challenges and number of scale points increases to five and continues to
(4) financing/value for money. Based on the detailed literature increase at a much smaller rate for additional points above five.
review undertaken, it was also observed that the main debatable On that basis, this study opted to use the five-scale approach.
issue with regard to PPP was achieving value for money in PPP The risk the chance of losing information on scale having more
projects due to the fact that, it is an expensive and lengthy pro- than five on the Likert scale was another motivating factor.
curement process hence requiring enough knowledge and skills However, as demonstrated in the Kavishe et al. (2019a), in order
in identifying best PPP candidate projects, best private partner, to bridge links between the literature review and the question-
identifying and allocating risks to the party best able to manage naire development for items to be included in the CSFs instru-
as well as stakeholders’ management (Grimsey and Lewis 2002, ment was undertaken. Therefore, in developing the
2004, 2005). Furthermore, various seminal studies (Akintoye questionnaire, some considerations of whether to develop new
et al. 2003, Zhang 2005 and Li et al. 2005) argued that, PPPs are scales (option 1) around CSF for PPP infrastructure and housing
associated with complex negotiations, difficulty in valuing of projects in Kenya or use existing ones (option 2) as available in
facility management services, stipulating the quality of service, literature were made. However, as noted by the seminal study by
identifying possible conflicts of interests among those involved in Prajogo and Sohal (2004), the aspect of developing new con-
the procurement, and the public sector clients’ and incapacity to structs or scales of measurement is often acknowledged as being
manage consultants as factors hindering the achievement of a complex task. In contrast, Tata et al. (1999) notes that wher-
value for money in PPPs. On the other hand, Governments in ever possible, use pre tested constructs from past empirical stud-
both developed and developing countries such as Kenya believe ies to ensure their validity and reliability. On that basis, the
that PPP is an effective way to decrease their financial burden development of the questionnaire relied on the second option as
hence the reason for its popularity. Other identified benefits advocated by Tata et al. (1999). On that basis, the following
include encourage private sector innovation and management selected studies were drawn from both developing and developed
skills, possibility of risk sharing, provides value for money and economies as follows: Nigeria-Babatunde et al. (2012, 2016,
on time delivery to mention a few. 2019); Ghana - Osei-Kyei and Chan (2015), Osei-Kyei and Chan
More so, the majority of PPP studies undertaken in Africa (2017a, 2017b), Osei-Kyei et al. (2017); Indonesia - Wibowo and
have used survey instruments based on developed countries. To Alfen (2015); Tanzania - Kavishe and Chileshe (2018a); China -
address that knowledge gap, this study investigates the CSFs Tang et al. (2010); Yuan et al. (2010); Liang et al. (2018); Chen
influencing the implementation of PPP infrastructure and hous- (2013); Xu et al. (2010), and Thailand (Trangkanont and
ing projects in Kenya. Charoenngam 2014) and general -Ullah and Thaheem (2018).
Drawing upon the approach undertaken by Ismail and Haris
Research methods (2014), the study only comprises the 17 CSFs influencing the
implementation of PPPs in infrastructure and housing projects
In order to identify the CSFs influencing the implementation of that are relevant within the Kenyan context. The second justifica-
PPPs within the Kenyan infrastructure and housing projects, this tion for considering only 17 CSFs was based on a careful review
study adopted a quantitative survey based questionnaire. The and selection process to cover key issues, and as consensus-based
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1609

Table 1. Summary of selected studies on the CSFs for PPPs in developing countries.
No. Study/researchers1 Country Findings
1. Alinaitwe and Ayesiga Uganda Investigated 32 success factors for PPP on construction projects. The following 4 were identified as
(2013) most important: A competitive procurement process, a well-organised private sector, the
availability of competent personnel to participate in PPP project implementation, and
good governance
2. Babatunde et al. (2016) Nigeria Identified the following 19 CSFs for PPP projects in Nigeria. The following six were highly ranked:
Transparency in the procurement process; effective management control; good governance;
project economic viability; favourable investment environment; and project technical feasibility
3. Ameyaw et al. (2017) Ghana Investigated the 17 critical success factors (CSFs) required for attracting the private sector in water
supply projects in Ghana. The following five were ranked higher based on the significance and
agreement levels: Political commitment from elected leaders (government) towards water-based
PPPs; Dedicated national PPP unit; strong and competent public water authority (contracting
authority); fiscal capacity of national/subnational water authority; pubic acceptance and support of
involvement of private sector in water services.
4. Osei-Kyei and Chan Ghana / Hong Kong Compared the CSFs for PPPs projects in developing (Ghana) and developed (Hong Kong) countries.
(2017a, 2017b) From 32 CSFs, the following seven were highly ranked for Ghana: Transparent PPP process;
favourable legal and regulatory framework; political stability; clarity of roles and responsibilities
among parties; right project identification; political/government support; and
competitive tendering
5. Kavishe and Chileshe Tanzania Identified 17 CSFs influencing the implementation of PPP in infrastructure and housing projects. The
(2019) following six were highly ranked: Dedicated team of professionals to oversee the PPP projects;
official and unofficial site visits and inspection; government support and guarantees; undertaking
checks and balance from the design stage to construction stage; scrutiny of PPP project proposal;
and trust and integrity.
6. Debela (2019) Ethiopia Examined 26 critical success factors of PPP road projects in Ethiopia and the following seven CSFs
were identified as important: Presence of an enabling environment, well-organized and
committed public agency, stable political and social environment, favourable and legal
frameworks, good governance, appropriate risk allocation and sharing, and transparent
procurement process.
Notes: 1Ranked in chronological order;  Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly East Africa (Uganda and Tanzania).

CSFs that affect public and private stakeholder’s perception of standard database containing PPP members existed.
their relevance to the implementation of PPPs in infrastructure Consequently, 50 questionnaires were administered electronically
and housing projects in developing countries. Ameyaw et al. through survey monkey and link was sent by email and other
(2017) used a similar approach in their study of critical success social media platforms. As a result, a total of 27 were subse-
factors (CSFs) required for attracting the private sector in water quently collected and considered valid representing a response
supply projects. rate of 54 percent. In construction management research this is
considered as a high response rate (Chileshe et al. 2018), and
well above similar studies in PPP survey-related research
Survey administration (Kavishe et al. 2018). Whilst this might appear as a small sample
Similar to Kavishe and Chileshe (2018b), the study used purpos- size, it’s similar to previous PPP related studies in sub-Saharan
ive sampling amongst the professionals, in government agencies Africa. For example, the study by Kavishe et al. (2018) under-
such as; Public Private Partnership Unit (PPPU), public institu- taken in Tanzania has only 28 respondents. Likewise, Ameyaw
tions (National Housing Corporation NHC, Kenya National et al. (2017) used sample size of 35 experts and Almarri and
Highways Authority KeNHA, and ministries) and Private Abuhijleh (2017) had 30 respondents drawn from the UAE
Partners and consultants that are involved in PPP projects. The although this included a comparative survey with the UK sample
rationale for using the questionnaire approach is that, according which had 62 respondents. Recent studies such as Mostafa et al.
to Osei-Kyei and Chan (2015) study which involved most of the (2020) had a sample size of 30 respondents. According to
studies about PPPs from 1990-2013, identified that 37% of the Coviello and Jones (2004), sample size is not as issue if high-
studies carried on PPP CSFs were done through questionnaires. quality survey data are obtainable from similar sample drawn
More so, recent studies undertaken in the area of PPPs have also using well-developed selection criteria, and meaning findings can
used the survey method to collect the required data (Kavishe still result.More so, as noted by Kothari (2004), the selected sam-
et al. 2018; Ameyaw et al. 2017; Wibowo and Alfen 2014). This ple is typical of the whole and allowed intensive study.
is evident that survey based method gives the intended or a
good outcome.
Data analysis
As noted by Rowley (2014), purposive sampling used when
the researcher already knows something about the specific cases This study adopts the data analysis as that of Kavishe et al.
and deliberately selects specific ones because they are likely to (2019a) and Chileshe and Kikwasi (2014). To that end, the quan-
produce the most valuable data. Therefore, due to the newness titative data were analysed using IBM’s Statistical Package for the
of PPPs in Kenya, and prior knowledge by the researchers of Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 25. Parametric tests meas-
which organisations had employed PPPs, the selected respond- ured the significance of the “CSFs” influencing the PPP imple-
ents were based on the relevant field of some of locally based mentation in infrastructure and housing projects. Drawing upon
researchers (authors) as they had relevant experience within the Kavishe et al. (2018, 2019a), Ling and Nguyen (2013) studies, the
subject area. The selected respondents were mostly individuals cut-off point for five-point scale was set at “3.5” (l ¼ 3.5), the
that were experts in the PPP sector within one of regions in hypothesis is introduced to measure the criticality of the varia-
Kenya, namely Nakuru County Government. Furthermore, no bles (CSFs) under investigation. Whereas the value of “3” would
1610 N. CHILESHE ET AL.

be the middle point on a five-point Likert scale, this would be Table 2. Background information of respondents (Individual characteristics).
equivalent to the identification of 50 per cent of variable affect- Characteristics No of respondents % Cumulative
ing the PPP in infrastructure and housing projects. Therefore, Age
given the importance and lack of PPP-related studies within the <25 5 18.52 18.52
Kenyan infrastructure and housing projects (World Bank 2016, 26-35 14 51.85 70.37
36-45 7 25.93 96.30
Sharma 2012), a value higher than 50 per cent for the measure- 46-55 1 3.70 100.00
ment of the criticality of the variables is appropriate. To that Total 27
end, the l value of 3.5 and the procedures for the single-sample Experience
t-test were conducted as outlined in Cronk (2012). The rationale Beginner (0-3 years) 15 55.56% 55.56
Intermediate (4-7 years) 6 22.22% 77.78
and explanation of the null hypothesis thus is that the CSFs
Expert (>8years) 6 22.22% 100.00
affect the implementation of Kenyan PPPs in infrastructure and Total 27
housing projects to a significant effect, whereas the alternative
hypothesis is that these CSFs are not significant, and
less important. Table 3. Background information of respondents (Organisational characteristics).
Characteristics (Sector) No of respondents % Cumulative
Statistical power Government 8 29.63 29.63
Private sector 13 48.15 77.78
According to studies such as Pallant (2005), Burmeister and Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) 2 7.41 85.19
Self-employed 4 14.81 100.00
Aitken (2012), a number of factors influence sample size and Total 27
these [factors] includes effect size, the homogeneity of the sam-
ple, and risk of error. Based on the recommendation of McClave
and Benson (1991, cited in Forza 2002), and to reduce the prob- respondents are from either the public or private sector which is
ability of making a Type I error (i.e., rejecting the null hypoth- highly significant for this particular study.
esis H0 when it is true), or commonly known as false-positive,
the study’s significance level was taken as a ¼ 0.05. As suggested
by Burmeister and Aitken (2012), the potential impact of a false- Results and findings
positive results was also considered through lowering the level of This section will discuss about the findings by discussing the
significance to a ¼ 0.01 (1% risk). Secondly, to increase the analysis results and relating them to the literature review. The
chances of detecting trivial effects, as suggested by Verma and research involved identifying and analysing the CFSs that affect
Goodale (1995, cited in Forza 2002), the statistical power of 0.8 PPPs and provide a framework that that would be used as a
was selected as this represented a realistic value for research in guideline by both the public and private sector in Kenya.
the social/behavioural sciences. Likwise, as asserted by De
Beuckelaer and Wagner (2012), the maximum probability of a
Type II error (or false-negative), which is the complement of the Reliability analysis
power level, was also constrained to be 0.20 (i.e., 1 minus
The reliability and internal consistency of the survey instrument
0.80 (b)).
comprising the 17 CSF as itemised and described in the literature
review were examined using the Cronbach’s alphas coefficient.
Characteristics of the sample According to Cronbach (1951), this is one of the most popular
reliability statistics which is aimed at determining the internal
The characteristics of the respondents and their organisations are consistency or average correlation of items in a survey instru-
summarised in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. ment to gauge its reliability. The Cronbach alpha was found to
be 0.807 (F-statistic ¼ 1.130, sig. ¼ 0.325) for the critical success
factors instrument. Despite the Cronbach alpha (a) coefficient
Individual characteristics
for the critical success factor instrument been low and less than
Examination of Table 2 shows that most of the respondents the acceptable threshold of 0.7, thus indicating a low reliability
(51.85%) were young and between the ages of 26 and 35 years of scales (Nunnally 1978), the same study by Nunnally has
and none of the respondents were above the age of 55. Secondly, pointed out that, lower thresholds are sometimes used in the lit-
the majority of the respondents have not been in the industry erature, while Tavakol and Dennick (2011) notes that a higher
for more than 7 years. Therefore, they have been able to see the alpha coefficient values is not necessarily an indicator of a high
development and progression of PPPs in Kenya, and how PPPs degree of internal consistency. Further examination of ‘item-total
have helped changed the country through major infrastructure statistics’ and ‘alpha if item deleted’ revealed that only the dele-
and housing projects. This finding further confirms that the tion of the seventh ranked CSF item, namely ‘Equal sharing of
majority of the Kenyan PPP practitioners related to infrastruc- risk and risk allocation’ would improve the reliability of the scale
ture and housing projects are at their infancy or beginner stage to .389. Drawing on the approach of Kavishe et al. (2018), this
and lack the necessary expertise. item was not deleted.

Organisational characteristics Content validity

The profile of organisational characteristics is shown in Table 3 According to Yusof and Aspinwall (2000), content validity is
Examination of Table 3 shows that only a minority (7.41%) of defined as the success of researchers in creating measurement
the respondents work within Non-governmental organisations items that cover the content domain of the variable being meas-
(NGOs). The results further show that the majority of the ured. It’s also defined as the extent to which a scale’s items, in
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1611

the aggregate, constitute a representative sample of the topic’s weak PPP culture, institutional and regulatory frameworks
content domain (Ro et al. 2015) whereas, Pallant (2005) refers to (Owolabi et al. 2019). Therefore, the respondents were asked to
content validity (of a scale) as the degree to which it measures indicate whether they were aware of the legal framework associ-
what it is supposed to measure. Therefore, in order to ensure ated with PPP implementation. Figure 1 shows the frequency of
that the critical success factors for PPPs had content validity, as the responses.
suggested by Yusof and Aspinwall (2000), the content validity of Examination of Figure 1 shows that the majority 16 (57.69%)
the questionnaire as currently based on the literature review was were aware of the legal framework, and the remaining 11
undertaken (through review) by the authors and augmented by a (42.31%) were not aware or didn’t know about such frameworks.
pilot study. The plausible explanation of this finding is because PPPs are a
new phenomenon in Kenya (Odongo 2012), and started becom-
ing very common recently. However, notwithstanding the find-
Awareness of PPPs legal framewoks ings, there is evidence which suggests existence of enabling
Despite the requirement in Kenya, that the regulatory framework regulatory framework in the utility sectors to facilitate PPPs
mandates that when a PPP project is amended, it should con- (energy, ICT, Transport). The lack of awareness could also be
tinue to provide value for money (World Bank 2016), there sector specific as Olutch (2017) acknowledges that Kenya has a
appears to be a lack of awareness of such frameworks. More so, fairly robust PPP framework. As evidenced in literature, lack of
the Sub-African African economies are renowned for exhibiting awareness of such contemporary issues in developing countries
like risk management, and PPPs lead to limited usage (Chileshe
and Kikwasi 2014). This lack of awareness has also been linked
to unsuccessful implementation of public road construction proj-
ects in Uganda (Mwelu et al. 2019). While the focus of our cur-
rent study is on PPPs, some similarities in terms of the
geographical and economic conditions of both Kenya and
Uganda makes it pertinent to draw lessons from such studies.
The implications that can be inferred from this finding are that
there is a need for the Kenyan stakeholders having frameworks
that could easily be interpreted by everyone.

Mean ranking of the critical success factors (CSFs)

Table 4 summarises the descriptive statistics (mean scores and
deviation) and overall ranking of the 17 CSFs influencing the
implementation of PPP in Kenyan infrastructure and housing
projects. The Table also reports on the results of the one-sample
tests and as indicated in the research methods section, to control
for Type I error of the sample size, the reported level of signifi-
cance for the a was set at both 0.01 (1% risk) and 0.05 (5%
risk) levels.
Examination of Table 4 shows that the mean scores of the 17
CSFs ranged from 4.04 (Acceptance and support by the commu-
nity) to 3.41 (Proper efficient training of employees). On the
contrary the standard deviation of all the factors ranges from
Figure 1. Awareness of PPP legal frameworks. 0.832 (Project technical feasibility) to 1.476 (transparency and

Table 4. Mean score ranking of CSFs for PPP infrastructure and housing projects.
CSFs t-test (l ¼ 3.5) df Sig (2-tailed) Mean score (MS)a,b SD R Significant (p < 0.5)
CSF1¼ Equal sharing of risk and risk allocation. 1.142 26 .264 3.74 1.0951 7 No
CSF2¼The support given by the government 1.181 26 .248 3.74 1.0594 8 No
CSF3¼Acceptance and support given by the community 3.455 26 .002 4.04 0.808 1 Yes
CSF4¼Proper and efficient training of employees .395 26 .696 3.41 1.217 17 No
CSF5¼Transparency and equity in the procurement process .196 26 .846 3.44 1.476 16 No
CSF6¼Effective and enough resource allocation and management .207 26 .838 3.44 1.396 15 No
CSF7¼The laws, regulations and guidelines put in place 2.204 26 .037* 3.96 1.091 3 Yes
CSF8¼Assessing of financial lending decision .385 25 .703 3.69 1.158 10 No
CSF9¼Time for registration and permission .341 26 .736 3.44 0.847 14 No
CSF10¼Project technical feasibility 3.122 26 .004 4.00 0.832 2 Yes
CSF11¼Available financial market 2.311 26 .029 3.93 0.958 4 Yes
CSF12¼Realistic cost benefit assessment 1.142 26 .264 3.70 1.137 9 No
CSF13¼Shared authority between public and private sector. .172 25 .865 3.46 1.140 13 No
CSF14¼Having a stable and favourable economic environment. .592 25 .559 3.65 1.325 11 No
CSF15¼Competitive procurement process .317 25 .754 3.58 1.238 12 No
CSF16¼Having strong and good private consortium 1.241 25 .226 3.77 1.107 6 No
CSF17¼Having a well-organized public agency and committed. 1.386 25 .178 3.81 1.132 5 No
Notes: aMean score based on valid n ¼ 27 (list wise), bmean score of the CSF variable where 5¼ strongly agree; 4 ¼ agree; 3 ¼ neutral; 2¼ disagree; 1¼ strongly
disagree. The higher the mean score the more important the CSF; SD ¼ Standard deviation, R ¼ Ranking, df ¼ degrees of freedom. Significant at the 95 per cent
level (p < 0.05); Significant at the 99 per cent level (p < 0.01).
1612 N. CHILESHE ET AL.

equity in the Procurement Process) indicating a varying range good services from the project. With the SGR example the com-
(of lack of) consensus among the respondents regarding the munities were assured of fast and subsidized transport fees from
importance of the CSFs. The values of the different maximum the capital city and its environs to the coastal region, this led to
and minimum score (not reported) further suggested that the the support from all the affected communities. Similarly, with
data was not biased. The following top five ranked CFS had a the Tanzanian context, Kavishe et al. (2018), identified, interest
mean score > 3.80 and they are as follows: 1) Acceptance and of the public to be supreme, and help with mitigating the chal-
support given by the community (mean ¼ 4.037, SD ¼ 0.808); lenges that were identified to be affecting housing PPPs.
2) Project feasibility (mean ¼ 4.000, SD ¼ 0.832); 3) The laws,
regulations and guidelines put in place (mean ¼ 3.963, SD ¼
1.091); 4) Available financial market (mean ¼ 3.926, SD ¼ Project technical feasibility
0.958); and 5) Having a well organised and committed public
agency (mean ¼ 3.808, SD ¼ 1.132). Furthermore, examination Project technical feasibility
of Table 4 indicates a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) The second overall ranked CSFs was that of “Project technical
and (p < 0.01) between perceptions for 4 (23.52%) of the CSFs. feasibility” (Table 4: mean score ¼ 4.00, SD ¼ 0.832). It was also
Interestingly, 12 CSFs attained a mean value greater than 3.5. statistically significant (t (26) ¼ 3.122; p ¼ 0.004 < 0.05, and
The following subsections present a brief discussion of CSFs in p < 0.01). The quantitative results are further supported by previ-
the top and lower quartiles. This approach of selecting CSFs ous and limited studies on Kenyan PPPs which identified the
from the quartiles has been used in previous PPP related studies failure of PPPs as being due to several factors such as poor feasi-
(Kavishe et al. 2019a) bility studies, poor planning, lack of accountability and minimal
or no involvement of the community in the projects. This sug-
gests that the absence or presence of ‘technical feasibility’ would
Acceptance and support by the community
be an enabler or CSFs and inhibitor (barrier) respectively. On
The CSF “acceptance and support by the community” (mean ¼ the other hand, it was identified that those projects that were
4.04) was viewed as the most important influencing the adoption successful were economically beneficial to the country and
of PPPs in infrastructure and housing in Kenya, with this CSF helped in its growth. This finding coincides with earlier studies
also statistically significant (t (27) ¼ 3.455; p ¼ 0.002 < 0.05, and on CSFs for PPP (Ismail 2013; Kwofie et al. 2016; World Bank
p < 0.01). The lower value of the standard deviation (SD ¼ 2016). For instance, Kwofie et al. (2016) identified “accurate pro-
0.808) further reinforced the respondents’ consensus in their ject identification and technical feasibility”, whereas Ismail
higher ranking of this CSF. In response to improving the accept- (2013) suggested having “public sector to carry out feasibility
ance and support by the community, the emergent implications study rather than the private sector to avoid exaggeration” as
are having project awareness programs or campaigns before the remedial solution to “inadequate feasibility study” which Kavishe
project is commenced could lead to acceptance and support by et al. (2018) identified as a challenge to PPP implementation.
the community. Other potential measures includes involving the More so, the World Bank (2016) report highlighted the poor
community from the conceptualization, implementation and sus- project design arising from the failure to undertake feasibility
tainability phase; involving them in decision making process, of
analysis for PPP projects. The emergent implications from the
the decisions that directly affect them; and having the commu-
above findings is that, for any project not only, PPP there needs
nity to recruit several leaders who would present their interests
to be a feasibility study which is done to determine, if the project
in projects carried out within the community and, the represen-
is viable and has Value for Money (VFM). Being that PPP pro-
tative should have the community’s interest in mind. The quanti-
tative and qualitative findings are also consistent with previous ject are high capital investments there needs to be a very good
studies (PMI 2017; Osei-Kyei and Chan 2015; Kavishe et al. analysis of the projects to ensure VFM is achieved.
2018). For instance, the (PMI 2017) acknowledged that project
success can be viewed from different factors, which include
achieving the objectives of the projects within the constraints Laws, regulations and guidelines put in place
(time, scope, quality and cost) limits put in place and the stake- Laws, regulations and guidelines put in place
holders’ satisfaction (PMI 2017). Likewise, Osei-Kyei and Chan The third overall ranked CSFs was that of “Laws, regulations and
(2015) notes that PPPs also need to have support and acceptance guidelines put in place” (Table 4: mean ¼ 3.963, SD ¼ 1.091),
from the public for them to be successful, ‘the acceptance and
with this CSF also statistically significant (t (27) ¼ 2.204;
understanding by the public community be it the media, trade
p ¼ 0.037 < 0.05, but not at p < 0.01). This finding was consistent
unions, civil societies and other non-governmental organizations
with earlier PPP literature regarding CSFs. For instance, Kavishe
is very important in ensuring the progress of PPP projects.
One emergent implication from the findings is that support and Chileshe (2019) identified the factor of “adequate PPP policy
from the community helps to reduce delays especially in the ini- and legal framework”, whereas Almarri and Boussabaine (2017);
tial stages of the project. For example, drawing the Kenyan con- and Babatunde et al. (2012) identified “favourable legal frame-
text, with the Special Gauge Railway (SGR) project, the work” as being among the CSFs which could enhance the adop-
government needed to acquire parcels of land from the commu- tion of PPP projects. From the Kenyan perspective, laws are the
nity where the rail line was to pass through. Without the support statutes which are written and passed by the parliament and the
of the community, and them agreeing to sell there parcels of Public Procurement and Asset Disposal Act 2015, these are some
land to the government the project would not have proceeded of the laws that are put in place by the GOK to help in the oper-
even to very fast stages of the projects. However, for the commu- ation processes of PPPs. Regulations, on the other hand, are
nity to give the support, the government needed to create aware- standards and rules adopted by administrative agencies such as
ness and educate the community of the importance of the PPP unit and Public Procurement Oversight Authority (PPOA)
project and give assurance that they would receive quality and that govern how laws will be enforced.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1613

Available financial market ¼ 3.44; SD ¼ 1.476), and not statistically significant (t (27) ¼
0.196; p ¼ 0.846 > 0.05, and p > 0.01). The higher value of the
Available financial market standard deviation (SD ¼ 1.476) further reinforced the respond-
The fourth overall ranked CSFs was that of “Available financial ents ‘lack of consensus in their lower ranking of this CSF. This
market” (Table 4: mean ¼ 3.93, SD ¼ 0.958). Despite the higher finding further contradicts some of the earlier studies regarding
ranking, this CSF was not statistically significant (t (27) ¼ its importance. More so, the relevance of this CSF is exacerbated
0.395; p ¼ 0.696 > 0.05, and p > 0.01). This finding is also con- by the fact that the corruption index for Kenya is not very good.
sistent with earlier PPP literature regarding the CSFs (Kavishe It is currently ranked at 144 out of 180 countries with a score of
and Chileshe 2018a, 2018b; Ismail 2013; Chan et al. 2010; 27% (Transparency International et al. 2013). This situation
Babatunde et al. 2012; Akintoye and Kumaraswamy 2016; Li therefore discourages the Private sector to be involved in the
et al. 2005; Zhang 2005). For instance, within the Malaysian con- PPPs hence slowing down the growth of PPPs in Kenya. Some
text, Ismail (2013) described the availability of the financial mar- PPP related studies have equally identified the importance of this
ket as mainly being identified by the private sector as they are CSF (Wibowo and Alfen 2015; Babatunde et al. 2016; Osei-Kyei
the party who would be going ahead to fund the projects, either and Chan 2017a, 2017b; Kavishe and Chileshe 2019; Hossain
through borrowing of money or through their profits From the et al. 2019). For instance, within the Indonesian context,
findings it is evident that the private sector is concerned with Wibowo and Alfen (2014) identified transparency as an indicator
the financing of the projects, where the financial market needs to of good governance, whereas Kavishe and Chileshe identified
be mature with benefits such as low financing costs and diversi- “Transparency at every stage “among the CSFs. Likewise, both
fied financial products to motivate or be incentives for the pri- Osei-Kyei and Chan (2017b) and Babatunde et al. (2016) studies
vate sector to take up the projects (Chan et al. 2010). Similarly, ranked “transparent PPP process” and “transparency in the pro-
other studies within the African context have identified the avail- curement process” respectively first.
ability of the financial market among the CSFs (Babatunde et al. The emergent implication from this finding is that, lack of
2012) (Akintoye and Kumaraswamy 2016; Li et al. 2005; Zhang good governance in the procurement process can lead to per-
2005) have identified that this is the factor that almost all if not formance problems. As noted by Hossain et al. (2019), there is
all private companies interested in joining PPP investigate to more scope for opportunism and corruption developing coun-
ensure that the benefits are fully maximized. tries. This transparency indicator is very crucial as infrastructure
and housing projects require a lot of procurement process to be
Having a well-organized and committed public agency carried out between several contractors. It is also important to
note that whilst transparency is associated with the tendering
Having a well-organized and committed public agency and com- process, it should nevertheless be considered throughout the
mitted was the fifth ranked CSF (Mean ¼ 3.81; SD ¼ 1.132). delivery of PPPs, and it rests on the constant communication
Despite the higher ranking, this CSF was not statistically signifi- between all the parties including the external stakeholders.
cant (t (27) ¼ 1.386; p ¼ 0.178 > 0.05, and p > 0.01). This result According to the Transparency International et al. (2013),
coincides with the findings of Kavishe and Chileshe (2019), corruption is abuse of entrusted power for private gain. Likewise,
Ameyaw et al. (2017). For instance, within the Tanzania context, similar studies within the developing countries context such as
Kavishe and Chileshe (2019) identified “dedicated team of profes- Wibowo and Alfen (2014) identified that within the life cycle of
sionals to oversee the PPP projects” and “an effective PPP unit” PPPs they are naturally vulnerable to corruption, which is highly
whereas Ameyaw et al. (2017) identified “existence of a dedicated faced in the developing countries. Likewise, within the
PPP unit” among the CSFs for PPP projects. The implication Tanzanian context, Kavishe et al. (2018) identified corruption as
from this finding is that the PPP unit or an agency would ensure one of the main PPP challenges influencing the housing projects.
that there is follow up in most of the PPP projects taking place, to Most importantly, the study proposed a model with emphasis on
ensure that everything is running smoothly without any hitches. fewer negotiations after bidder selection among the remedial sol-
The agency should also be in a position to solve conflicts that utions. Kenya and Tanzania share similar socio-economic status
may arise between the parties during the project’s lifecycle. This and having belonged to the defunct East African Community
would also give the private sector an incentive to take up PPP, as (EAC), and therefore some of the proposed remedial solutions
they can see there is accountability of what is being done. might be applicable to the Kenyan context.
In the lower quartile, “shared authority between public and pri-
vate sector”, “time for registration and permission”, “effective and
enough resource allocation and management”, “transparency and Proper and efficient training of employees
equity in the procurement process”, and “proper an efficient train- Proper and efficient training of employees
ing of employees” ranked 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th and 17th with mean The least ranked CSFs was that of “Proper and efficient training
scores of 3.46, 3.44, 3.44, 3.44, and 3.41 respectively. These pitfalls of employees” (Table 4: mean ¼ 3.41, SD ¼ 1.217), and not stat-
were not statistically significant (t (27) ¼ 0.172; p ¼ 0.865 > 0.05 istically significant (t (27) ¼ 0.395; p ¼ 0.696 > 0.05, and
and p > 0.01); (t (27) ¼ 0.341; p ¼ 0.736 > 0.05 and p > 0.01); (t p > 0.01). This finding is rather surprising given the importance
(27) ¼ 0.207; p ¼ 0.838 > 0.05, and p > 0.01); (t (27) ¼ 0.196; attached to training within PPP literature (Moskalyk 2011;
p ¼ 0.846 > 0.05, and p > 0.01); and (t (27) ¼ 0.395; Odongo 2012; World Bank 2016; Kavishe et al. 2018). For
p ¼ 0.696 > 0.05, and p > 0.01), respectively. The following sub example, Moskalyk (2011) acknowledged that PPPs are more
section discusses some of the CSFs within this lower quartile. complex when compared to the traditional procurement process,
requiring a huge amount of preparation, training and experience,
Transparency and equity in the procurement process as well as good monitoring and management skills. Likewise,
Odongo (2012) identified ‘assigning well trained workers for spe-
Although “transparency and equity in the procurement process”, cific tasks’ among the key factors that reduce delays in imple-
was not among the top five factors as it was ranked 16th (Mean mentation of PPPs in Kenya. PPP Training has also being
1614 N. CHILESHE ET AL.

Table 5. Comparison of CSFs between Kenya and other developing countries.

Top five CSFs
No in Kenya Ethiopia Tanzania Nigeria Ghana China
1 Acceptance and Presence of an A dedicated team of Transparency in the Political commitment Favourable
support given by enabling professionals to procurement from elected legal framework
the community environment oversee the process leaders
PPP projects (government)
towards water-
based PPPs
2 Project technical Well-organized and Official and unofficial Effective Dedicated national Appropriate risk
feasibility committed site visits management PPP unit allocation and
public agency and inspection control risk sharing
3 The laws, regulations Stable political and Government support Good governance Strong and Commitment and
and guidelines social and guarantees competent public responsibility of
put in place environment water authority public and
(contracting private sectors
authority)
4 Available Favorable and Undertaking checks Project Fiscal capacity of Stable macro-
financial market legal frameworks and balance from economic viability national/ economic
the design stage subnational condition
to water authority
construction stage
5 Having a well- Good governance Scrutiny of PPP Favourable Public acceptance Available
organized public project proposal investment and support of financial market
agency environment involvement of
and committed private sector in
water services.
Note: The format of the Table is adapted from Debela (2019).

identified as a remedial solution to challenges facing PPPs such Nigeria although labelled as ‘Favourable investment environment’.
as “insufficient capacity in procurement and negotiations” and The differences in the ranking of the CSFs further lends support
“inexperienced private partner” (Kavishe et al. 2018). to the assertions by Voordijk (2012); and Ofori (2012), that
countries will have varying outcomes of PPP success which can
be attributed to the varying institutional, financial and cultural
Comparison between Kenya and other developing countries
environments.
in terms of five top CSFs
In order to compare international best practices relative to the
identification of CSFs for PPP, this study draws on the approach Recommendations, implications and conclusions
undertaken by Debela (2019) and compares the results as There is a growing need for implementation of PPPs as a vehicle
obtained in the current study with those reported in other devel-
for raising finance by from the private sector by the public sector
oping countries such as Ethiopia (Debela 2019); Tanzania
as a mechanism for funding infrastructure and social housing
(Kavishe and Chileshe 2018a, 2018b); Nigeria: (Babatunde et al.
projects within developed and developing economies. While
2016); Ghana (Ameyaw et al. 2017); and China (Cheung et al.
there are ample studies undertaken on PPPs in selected develop-
2012). Table 5 summarises the top five CSFs of the Kenyan
infrastructure and housing projects PPP implementation with ing countries, there are limited studies undertaken infrastructure
five selected emerging economies (Ethiopia, Tanzania, Nigeria, and housing sectors on the enablers of PPP implementation
Ghana and China). within the Kenyan context. The purpose of this study was to
Of the five countries compared with Kenya, only Tanzania is investigate the Kenyan stakeholder’s perceptions on the CSFs
in a similar nascent stage of PPP as Kenya. The comparable influencing the implementation of PPPs. The study used an
countries appear to have support for PPPs, hence the first highly interpretivist epistemological design approach with a question-
ranked CSFs is unique and critical for Kenya only. As seen in naire survey among the Kenyan practitioners drawn from the
Table 5, this CSF was ranked fifth in Ghana. The second CSF government (public), private sector, NGO’s and self-employed
‘Project technical feasibility’ was ranked fifth in Tanzania involved with PPP projects. The overall results show the follow-
although labelled as ‘Scrutiny of PPP project proposal’. ing CSFs as most influential:
The third CSF in Kenya ‘The laws, regulations and guidelines
acceptance and support given by the community (mean
put in place’ was ranked top in China, third and fourth in ¼ 4.04);
Nigeria and Ethiopia respectively, although this was labelled as
project feasibility (mean ¼ 4.00);
‘good governance’ in Nigeria. However, it could be argued that
the laws, regulations and guidelines put in place (mean
Ethiopia, Tanzania and Nigeria share some commonalities with ¼ 3.96)
the ranking of the third CSF as the study by Zhang (2005) has
available financial market (mean ¼ 3.93);
shown synergies between having ‘stable political and social envir-
having a well organised and committed public agency (mean
onment’ with the respective government creating such environ- ¼ 3.81);
ment with ‘good governance’ and ‘workable legal and regulatory
having strong and good private consortium (3.77)
frameworks’. Kenya is already heading in that direction as its Whereas the least ranked CSFs were as follows:
legal system is based on Common Law which is conducive for
shared authority between public and private sector (mean
PPP development (World Bank 2016). The fourth factor in ¼ 3.46);
Kenya ‘Available financial market’ was ranked fifth in China and
time for registration and permission (mean ¼ 3.44);
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1615

effective and enough resource allocation and management and experience significantly aids smooth operation of PPP proj-
(mean ¼ 3.44) ects and in carrying out more studies into PPP’s in the future.

transparency and equity in the procurement process (mean
¼ 3.44); and

proper and efficient training of employees (mean ¼ 3.41). Limitations and suggestions for future research
The first limitation of this that data for this research study were
Implications collected from only government, NGOs, and self-employed pri-
vate (public), and private stakeholders working for the Kenyan
Based on the findings, we highlight a number of important infrastructure and housing sectors. Therefore, their perceptions
implications for PPP stakeholders, practitioners, policy makers on CSFs necessary for the implementation are rather restricted
and government. By understanding the CSFs for PPP adoption, to that context. Consequently, the findings may not generalise to
both the Kenyan private and public sectors practitioners might other industries or organisations operating in other traditional
be in a better position to adopt PPP in infrastructure and hous- East African (Tanzania and Uganda) or SAA countries. Another
ing projects arising from the increased understanding of the limitation is the smaller sample size of the respondents which
CSFs. For example, for the government, in light of infrastructure can be attributed to the relative infancy of PPP approach in
and housing playing an important role in helping the country to Kenya. However, despite the noted limitations, this present study
achieve its Vision 2030 project board, the results of this research offers an implementation snapshot and CSFs necessary for the
would be used by the Government of Kenya (GOK) to put more implementation of PPPs within the Kenyan infrastructure and
emphasis and focus on what would help them maintain the good housing sectors. Future studies could be extended to other coun-
relationships with private companies and how they would create ties in Kenya and employ a larger sample size. Secondly, there is
new beneficial relationships by observing and prioritising contri- potential of mapping the identified CSFs across the PPP life
buting elements that will lead to successful infrastructure and cycle. Such an approach could lead to the development of a PPP
housing PPP projects which will also seek to bridge the gap for framework specifically tailored for the Kenyan infrastructure and
other research studies in regards to identifying and analysing the housing projects.
CSFs for PPPs in construction and development projects within
the Kenyan context. This would also help in determining some
of the constraints which may affect future PPP projects Disclosure statement
and reports.
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
For practitioners and stakeholders, these findings can be used
as a road map or vehicle for the successful implementation of
PPPs within the infrastructure and housing projects. Most
References
importantly, the ranking of the CSFs though not a serious indi-
cator of the influence of the CSFs, by focusing on the CSFs hav- Abdul-Aziz A-R, Kassim PJ. 2011. Objectives, success and failure factors of
ing low scores (such as “transparency and equity in the housing public–private partnerships in Malaysia. Habitat Int. 35(1):
150–157.
procurement process” and “proper and efficient training of
Albaum G. 1997. The Likert scale revisited: an alternate version. J Market
employees”), more emphasis could be placed activities aimed at Res. 39(2):331–348.
providing checks and balances within the procurement process Akintoye A, Hardcastle C, Beck M, Chinyio E, Asenova D. 2003. Achieving
such as whistle blowing. Secondly, the findings (see Figure 1 and best value in private finance initiative project procurement. Constr
Table 4) provides further opportunities for the practitioners in Manage Econ. 21(5):461–470.
Akintoye A, Kumaraswamy M. 2016. Public private partnerships, research
increasing and sensitisation of their members on the benefits of
roadmap-report for consultation. The Netherlands: CIB General
implementation of PPPs and relevance of the legal frameworks Secretariat; p. 1–33.
through awareness campaigns, given the existence such low levels Alinaitwe H, Ayesiga R. 2013. Success factors for the implementation of pub-
of awareness among the respondents. lic-private partnerships in the construction industry in Uganda. J Constr
While the CSF of “transparency and equity in the procure- Develop Countries. 18(2):1–14.
Almarri K. 2019. Perceptions of the attractive factors for adopting public–pri-
ment process”, was among the least ranked, its association with
vate partnerships in the UAE. Int J Constr Manage. 19(1):57–64.
corruption cannot be overlooked. Therefore, there is a need for a Almarri K, Abuhijleh B. 2017. A qualitative study for developing a frame-
framework within the Kenyan context that will help in curbing work for implementing public-private partnerships in developing coun-
or reducing the factors that facilitate corruption, such as having tries. J Facilities Manage. 15(2):170–189.
the information and reports about the projects publicly available. Almarri K, Boussabaine H. 2017. Interdependency of the critical success fac-
tors and ex-post performance indicators of PPP projects. Built Env Proj
Most importantly, lack of transparency within the procurement
Asset Man. 7(5):546–556.
process, could lead to wrong or unqualified contractors being Al-Saadi R, Abdou A. 2016. Factors critical for the success of public–private
awarded the contracts. This has the potential of having major partnerships in UAE infrastructure projects: experts’ perception. Int J
delays of projects or even the projects not being completed in Constr Manage. 16(3):234–248.
the end. More so, there is scope for the Government to develop a Ameyaw EE, Chan APC, Owusu-Manu DG. 2017. A survey of critical success
catalogue of PPP infrastructure and housing projects that are factors for attracting private sector participation in water supply projects
in developing countries. J Facilities Manage. 15(1):35–61.
successfully established. This catalogue helps offer accurate infor- Babatunde SO, Opawole A, Akinsiku EO. 2012. Critical success factors in
mation that can be utilized to perform comprehensive studies public-private partnership (PPP) on infrastructure delivery in Nigeria. J
with meaningful inferences. Finally, the recommendations for Facilities Manage. 10(3):212–225.
both the government and private sectors are to provide training Babatunde S, Perera S. 2017. Cross-sectional comparison of public-private
opportunities that facilitates experience for the workers on PPP. partnerships in transport infrastructure development in Nigeria. Eng
Constr Archit Manage. 24(6):875–900.
This will enable the participants in the public and private sector Babatunde SO, Perera S, Zhou L, Udeaja C. 2015. Barriers to public private
to acquire adequate and diverse skills and proficiency in procure- partnership projects in developing countries: a case of Nigeria. Eng Constr
ment, financial and legal management. The acquisition of skills Archit Manage. 22(6):669–691.
1616 N. CHILESHE ET AL.

Babatunde SO, Perera S, Zhou L, Udeaja C. 2016. Stakeholder perceptions on Kavishe N, Jefferson I, Chileshe N. 2019b. Evaluating issues and outcomes
critical success factors for public-private partnership projects in Nigeria. associated with public–private partnership housing project delivery:
Built Env Proj Asset Manage. 6(1):74–91. Tanzanian practitioners’ preliminary observations. Int J Constr Manage.
Babatunde SO, Perera S, Adeniyi O. 2019. Identification of critical risks fac- 19(4):354–369.
tors in public-private partnership project phases in developing countries – Kavishe N, Jefferson I, Chileshe N. 2018. An analysis of the delivery chal-
a case of Nigeria. Benchmarking. 26(2):334–355. lenges influencing public-private partnership in housing projects: the case
Burmeister E, Aitken L. 2012. Sample size: how many is enough? Aust Crit of Tanzania. Eng Const Arch Manage. 25(2):202–240.
Care. 25(4):271–274. Kavishe N, Chileshe N. 2018a. Driving forces for adoption of public-private
Chan A, Lam P, Chan D, Cheung E, Ke Y. 2010. Critical success factors for partnership in Tanzanian housing projects. Int J Constr Manage. doi:10.
PPPs in infrastructure developments: Chinese perspective. J Constr Eng 1080/15623599.2018.1502931.
Manage. 136(5):484–494. Kavishe N, Chileshe N. 2018b. Identifying project management practices and
Cheung E, Chan APC, Lam PTI, Chan DWM, Ke Y. 2012. A comparative principles for public-private partnership in housing projects: the case of
study of critical success factors for public private partnerships (PPP) Tanzania. Sustainability. 10(12):4609–4623..
between Mainland China and the Hong Kong special administrative Kothari CR. 2004. Research methodology: methods and techniques. New
region. Facilities. 30(13/14):647–666. Delhi: New Age International; p. 418.
Chen S. 2013. Improving value for money in public-private partnership infra- Kulshreshtha R, Kumar A, Tripathi A, Likhi D. 2017. Critical success factors
structure projects. Industry-academia gap analysis. Int J Constr Manage. in implementation of urban metro system on PPP: a case study of
8(5):418–429. Hyderabad Metro. Glob J Flex Syst Manage. 18(4):303–320.
Chileshe N, Rameezdeen R, Hosseini MR, Martek I, Li HX, Panjehbashi- Kwofie T, Afram S, Botchway E. 2016. A critical success model for PPP pub-
Aghdam P. 2018. Factors driving the implementation of reverse logistics: lic housing delivery in Ghana. Built Environm Proj Asset Manage. 6(1):
a quantified model for the construction industry. Waste Manage (Oxford). 58–73.
79:48–57. Leigland J. 2018. Public-private partnerships in developing countries: the
Chileshe N, Kikwasi GJ. 2014. Critical success factors for implementation of emerging evidence-based critique. The World Bank Res Obs. 33(1):
risk assessment and management practices within the Tanzanian construc- 103–134..
tion industry. Eng Const Arch Man. 21(3):291–319. Li B, Akintoye A, Edwards P, Hardcastle C. 2005. Critical success factors for
Coviello NE, Jones MV. 2004. Methodological issues in international entre- PPP/PFI projects in the UK construction industry. Constr Manage
preneurship research. J Business Venturing. 10:485–508. Econom. 23(5):459–471.
Cronbach LJ. 1951. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Liang R, Wu C, Sheng Z, Wang X. 2018. Multi-criterion two-sided matching
Psychometrika. 16(3):297–334. of public-private partnership infrastructure projects: criteria and methods.
Cronk BC. 2012. How to use SPSS: a step-by-step guide to analysis and inter- Sustainability. 10(4):1178.
pretation. 7th ed. Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Pub. Ling FYY, Nguyen DS. 2013. Strategies for construction waste management
Dairu A, Muhammad RS. 2015. Critical Success Factors of Public-Private- in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Built Environm Proj Asset Manage. 3(1):
Partnership Projects in Nigeria. ATBU J Environ Technol. 8 (2):52–63.
141–156.
Dawes J. 2008. Do data characteristics change according to the number of
Moskalyk A. 2011. Public-private partnerships in housing and urban develop-
scale points used? An experiment using 5-point, 7-point and 10-point
ment. Nairobi: UN-HABITAT.
scales. Int J Market Res. 50(1):61–77. Mostafa S, Kim KP, Tam VWY, Rahnamayiezekavat P. 2020. Exploring the
Debela GY. 2019. Critical success factors (CSFs) of public–private partnership
status, benefits, barriers and opportunities of using BIM for advancing
(PPP) road projects in Ethiopia. Int J Constr Manage. doi:10.1080/
prefabrication practice. Int J Constr Manage. 20(2):146–156.
15623599.2019.1634667.
Muhammad Z, Johar F. 2018. Critical success factors of public–private part-
De Beuckelaer A, Wagner SM. 2012. Small sample surveys: increasing rigor
nership projects: a comparative analysis of the housing sector between
in supply chain management research. Int Jnl Phys Dist Log Manage.
Malaysia and Nigeria. Int J Constr Manage. doi:10.1080/15623599.2017.
42(7):615–639.
Ferk B, Ferk P. 2017. Top 10 reasons why (not) and how (not) to implement 1423163.
Mwelu N, Davis PR, Ke Y, Watundu S, Jefferies M. 2019. Success factors for
PPPs in the developing and emerging economies. In: The emerald hand-
implementing Uganda’s public road construction projects. Int J Constr
book of public-private partnerships in developing and emerging econo-
mies. Chapter 1; Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Publishing Limited. Manage. doi:10.1080/15623599.2019.1573481.
Nunnally J. 1978. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-
p. 3–44.
Forza C. 2002. Survey research in operations management: a process-based Hill.
Odongo W. 2012. Factors influencing implementation of public -private part-
perspective. Int J Op Prod Mnage. 22(2):152–194.
Grimsey D, Lewis MK. 2002. Evaluating the risks of public private partner- nerships in Kenya [MSc Unpublished thesis]. Nairobi, Kenya: University
ships for infrastructure projects. Int J Proj Manage. 20(2):107–118. of Nairobi.
Grimsey D, Lewis MK. 2004. The governance of contractual relationships in Ofori G. 2012. The construction industries in developing countries–strategic
public-private partnerships. J Corporate Citizenship. 2004(15):91–109. review of the book. In: Ofori G, editor. Contemporary issues in construc-
Grimsey D, Lewis MK. 2005. Are Public Private Partnerships value for tion in developing countries. New York, NY: Spoon Press, Taylor and
money?: evaluating alternative approaches and comparing academic and Francis; p. 1–15.
practitioner views. Account Forum. 29 (4):345–378. Olutch C. 2017. Public-private partnerships: how does Kenya fare? Available
Hensley RL. 1999. A review of operations management studies using scale from: http://blogs.worldbank.org/ppps/public-private-partnerships-how-
development techniques. J Oper Manage. 17(3):343–358. does-kenya-fare.
Hossain M, Guest R, Smith S. 2019. Performance indicators of public private Osei-Kyei R, Dansoh A, Ofori-Kuragu JK. 2014. Reasons for adopting pub-
partnerships in Bangladesh: an implication for developing countries. Int J lic–private partnership (PPP) for construction projects in Ghana. Int J
Produc Perf Manage. 68(1):46–68. Constr Manage. 14(4):227–238.
Ismail S. 2013. Critical success factors of public private partnership (PPP) Osei-Kyei R, Chan AP. 2015. Review of studies on the critical success factors
implementation in Malaysia. Asia-Pacific J Bus Admin. 5(1):6–19. for public-private partnership (PPP) projects from 1990 to 2013. Int J Proj
Ismail S, Haris AF. 2014. Constraints in implementing public private partner- Manage. 33(6):1335–1346.
ship (PPP) in Malaysia. Built Environm Proj Asset Manage. 4 (3):238–250. Osei-Kyei R, Chan APC. 2017a. Implementing public–private partnership
Jakaitis J, Kazimieras Paliulis N. 2013. Public-private partnership: improving (PPP) policy for public construction projects in Ghana: critical success
landscape quality of modern communities. J Arch Urbanism. 37(1):31–41. factors and policy implications. Int J Constr Manage. 17(2):113–123.
Jamali D. 2004. Success and failure mechanisms of public private partner- Osei-Kyei R, Chan APC. 2017b. Empirical comparison of critical success fac-
ships (PPPs) in developing countries. Intl Jnl Public Sec Manage. 17(5): tors for public-private partnerships in developing countries: a case of
414–430. Ghana and Hong Kong. Eng Constr Arch Manage. 24(6):1222–1245.
Kavishe N, Chileshe N. 2019. Critical success factors in public-private part- Osei-Kyei R, Chan AP, Javed AA, Ameyaw EE. 2017. Critical success criteria
nership on affordable housing schemes delivery in Tanzania: a qualitative for public-private partnership projects: international experts’ opinion. Int J
study. J Facilities Manage. 17(2):188–207. Strat Prop Manage. 21 (1):87–100.
Kavishe N, Chileshe N, Jefferson I. 2019a. Public–private partnerships in Owolabi HA, Oyedele L, Alaka H, Ebohon OJ, Ajayi S, Akinade O, Bilal M,
Tanzanian affordable housing schemes policy and regulatory issues, pit- Olawale O. 2019. Public private partnerships (PPP) in the developing
falls. Built Environm Proj Asset Manage. 9(2):233–247. world: mitigating financiers. World J Sci Tech Sustain Dev. 16(3):121–141.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 1617

Patil NA, Laishram B. 2016. Public–private partnerships from sustainability Wanjira J. 2016. Kenya’s construction industry and its challenges. Construction
perspective – a critical analysis of the Indian case. Int J Constr Manage. Review Online, Available March 20, 2017 from: https://constructionrevie-
16(2):161–174. wonline.com/2016/09/kenyas-construction-industry-and-its-challenges/.
Pallant J. 2005. SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis Wetangula J, Mazurewicz M. 2017. The construction market in Kenya.
using SPSS version 12. 2nd Ed. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Nairobi: Polish Investment and Trade Agency; p. 1–18.
Prajogo DI, Sohal AS. 2004. The multidimensionality of TQM practices in Wibowo A, Alfen HW. 2014. Identifying macro-environmental critical suc-
determining quality and innovation performance: an empirical examin- cess factors and key areas for improvement to promote public-private
ation. Technovation. 23(6):443–453.
partnerships in infrastructure. Eng Const Arch Manage. 21(4):383–402.
Ray D, Ing L. 2016. Addressing Indonesia’s Infrastructure Deficit. Bull
Wibowo A, Alfen HW. 2015. Government-led critical success factors in PPP
Indonesian Econom Stud. 52(1):1–25.
Ro HK, Merson D, Lattuca LR, Terenzini PT. 2015. Validity of the contextual infrastructure development. Built Env Proj Asset Manage. 5(1):121–134.
competence scale for engineering students. J Eng Educ. 104(1):35–54. World Bank. 2016. Tanzania economic update the road less traveled unleash-
Rohman MA, Wiguna IPA. 2019. Evaluation of road design performance in ing public private partnerships in Tanzania, Africa region macroeconom-
delivering community project social benefits in Indonesian PPP. Int J ics and fiscal management global practice. [accessed 2019 Dec 10].
Constr Manage. doi:10.1080/15623599.2019.1603095. Available from: http://www.worldbank.org/tanianla/economlcupdate.
Rowley J. 2014. Designing and using research questionnaires. Manage Res World Bank PPI Database. 2018. Private participation in infrastructure data-
Rev. 37(3):308–330. base. Available from: https://ppi.worldbank.org/customer query.
Sharma C. 2012. Determinants of PPP in infrastructure in developing econo- Xu Y, Yeung JF, Chan APC, Chan DWM, Wang SQ, Ke Q. 2010.
mies. Transform Govern. 6(2):149–166. Developing a risk assessment model for PPP projects in China—a fuzzy
Tata J, Prasad S, Thorn R. 1999. The influence of organisational structure on synthetic evaluation approach. Autom Constr. 19(7):929–943.
the effectiveness of TQM programs. J Manage Iss. 11(4):440–453. Yuan JF, Skibniewski MJ, Li Q, Shan J. 2010. The driving factors of china’s
Tang L, Shen Q, Cheng EW. 2010. A review of studies on public-private public private partnership projects in metropolitan transportation systems:
partnership projects in the construction industry. Int J Proj Manage.
public sector’s viewpoint. J Civil Eng Manage. 16(1):5–18.
28(7):683–694.
Yusof SM, Aspinwall EM. 2000. Critical success factors in small and medium
Tavakol M, Dennick R. 2011. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med
Educ. 2:53–255. enterprises: survey results. Total Qual Manage. 11(4-6):448–462.
Transparency International. 2013. FAQs on corruption. Available from: www. Zhang X. 2005. Critical success factors for public–private partnerships in
transparency.org/whoweare/organisation/faqs_on_corruption#transparency. infrastructure development. J Constr Eng Manage. 131(1):3–14.
Trangkanont S, Charoenngam C. 2014. Critical failure factors of public-pri-
vate partnership low-cost housing program in Thailand. Eng Constr Arch
Manage. 21(4):421–443. Additional reading
Ullah F, Thaheem MJ. 2018. Concession period of public-private partnership
projects: industry–academia gap analysis. Int J Constr Manage. 18(5): McClave JT, Benson PG. 1991. Statistics for business and economics. New
418–429. York, NY: Macmillan.
Voordijk H. 2012. Contemporary issues in construction in developing coun- Verma R, Goodale JC. 1995. Statistical power in operations management
tries. Constr Manage Econom. 30(4):331–333. research. J Oper Manage. 13(2):139–152.