6.3 Focused Interviews
6.3.2 Data Analysis
The responses from the interviewees were coded through two cycles of coding using the provisional lists of codes derived from the preliminary framework. The provisional codes relate to guiding principles, shortfalls, and strategies. The respondents’ suggestion on each guiding principle were, then, coded as free node through open coding. In the similar
2 11 3 2
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Educational Qualification
Doctorate Postgraduate Postgraduate diploma Undergraduate
9 8 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Position in Organization
Top Management Middle Management Lower Management
1 4 6 6 1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Year of Experience in PPPs
> 20 Years 16-20 Years 11-15 Years 6-10 Years 1-5 Years
manner, respondents’ suggestion on the shortfalls and strategies were also coded as free node through open coding. The coded data were then analyzed using the four qualitative techniques -classical content analysis, constant comparison analysis, componential (matrix query) analysis, and taxonomic (model) analysis - for drawing the conclusions. Table 6.1 summarized the qualitative techniques used for drawing of conclusions from guiding principles, and shortfalls and strategies.
Table 6.1: Techniques used for drawing of conclusions from interview data Sl.
No.
Data or Parameter
Analysis techniques in NVivo10 for drawing of conclusions
1. Guiding principles Classical content analysis & Componential analysis (Matrix query) 2. Shortfalls and
Strategies
Classical content analysis; Componential analysis (Matrix query) Taxonomic analysis (Models); and Constant comparison analysis For the guiding principles, classical content analysis was carried using NVivo10 to count the number of respondents coded under each respective guiding principle. It has been observed from classical content analysis that the minimum number of respondents coded against the principles have been observed to be 17 respondents (refer Table 6.2).
Table 6.2: Classical content analysis of interview data for guiding principles
Sl. No. Guiding Principles Sources/Respondents
1 Environmental protection 18
2 Polluters pay 18
3 Balance risk allocation 18
4 Adaptability and resilience 17
5 Precautionary 18
6 Quality of life 18
7 Creativity and promote innovation 18
8 Up-gradation of knowledge 17
9 Affordable user charges 17
10 Intra-generational equity 18
11 Intergenerational equity 17
12 Long term strategic planning 18
13 Maintenance of natural resources 18
14 Value for money 18
15 Efficient project delivery 18
16 Public participation 18
17 Transparency and accountability 18
18 Strong organization and leadership 17
19 Multidimensional 18
20 Continuum 18
Componential analysis using matrix query was, then, conducted to check the respondents’
coding similarity for various guiding principles. The result of the matrix query for guiding principles across various respondents’ coded is shown in Figure 6.3. It could be observed that almost all the four groups of respondents have coded all the guiding principles.
Figure 6.3: Result of matrix query for guiding principles vs. respondents
With respect to shortfalls and strategies, constant comparison analysis was carried out to identify the underlying themes. Then, classical content analysis to count the number of respondents coded against each shortfall and strategy. The results of the classical content analysis (CCA) are shown in Table 6.7, showing the number of respondents coded for each strategy and shortfall. It has been observed from the classical content analysis that the maximum of respondents coded against any of the shortfall and strategy has been 15
0 5 10 15 20
Environmental Protection Polluters Pay Balance Risk Allocation Adaptability and Resilience Precautionary Quality of Life Creativity and Promote Innovation Up-gradation of Knowledge Affordable User Charges Social Justice Equitable Distribution of Resources Long Term Strategic Planning Maintenance of Natural Resources Value for Money Efficient Project Delivery Public Participation Transparency and Accountability Strong Organisation and Leadership Multidimensional Continuum
Respondents
Guiding Principles
Public Sector
Private Sector
Transaction Advisor
Financial Institution
respondents. Finally, componential analysis using matrix query was carried out to check coding similarity for shortfalls and strategies amongst the respondents’ group. Figure 6.4 and 6.5 shows the results of matrix query for coding of shortfalls vs. respondents and strategies vs. respondents respectively. It has been observed from this analysis that the almost all the four groups of respondents have coded similarly for all the shortfalls and strategies.
Figure 6.4: Result of matrix query for shortfalls vs. respondents
Taxonomic analysis has also been undertaken as part of the qualitative analysis to define the relationship between the variables and represent the relationship in the form of a model.
In this study, taxonomic analysis has been carried out in NVivo10. The model that has been developed from taxonomic analysis shows the relationship between the various strategies and the respective activities (includes shortfalls) and deliverables of PPP process. Figure 6.6 shows the detailed model of the framework of strategies, shortfalls, and deliverables of PPP procurement process. In this Figure 6.6, a ‘vertically elongated rectangle’ represents as a ‘strategies’; an octagon represents the ‘shortfall’; and a
‘horizontally elongated rectangle’ represents the ‘deliverables’. The alphabetic and numerical codes are used to define variables in the model. The alphabetic code ‘A to E’
for deliverables, numerical codes ‘1 to 11’ for shortfalls and numerical codes ‘1.1, 1.2...11.3’ for strategies are used for model development in Figure 6.6. It could be observed from the model that all the variables are inter-related with each other.
0 5 10 15 20
Inadequate EIA & SIA Lack of stakeholder’s participation Inadequate WLC method for VfM analysis Lack of knowledge about sustainability
Lack of Incentives to private sector Inadequate bid evaluation criteria High tariff charges for infrastructure Rigid MCA related to future risk High bidding and transaction cost Lack of transparency & accountability Goal conflict of private & public sector
Respondents
Shortfalls
Financial Institution Public Sector
Private Sector
Transaction Advisor
Figure 6.5: Result of matrix query for strategies vs. respondents
0 5 10 15 20
Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) - Include…
Climate change considerations - Assessment of…
Environmental-friendly & smart-growth technique -…
Participation of financial institutions (FIs) through…
Establish special purpose company (SPC) jointly…
Adoption of building information modeling (BIM)…
Community involvement through partnering with…
Include E&S costs & benefits in WLC estimation…
Include climate change parameters and long term…
Adopt life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches to…
Employ independent assessor with knowledge of…
Involvement of specialized sustainability advisors…
Develop strategies for attitude change, including…
Establish national PPP training programme for … Incentives for promote to use renewable energy…
Market mechanisms develop their own solutions…
Incentives for adaption and mitigation of climate…
Establish law regarding liability and compensation…
Green procurement criteria - Promote to use…
Include E&S criteria in bid evaluation - Complying … Additional bidding criteria - Promote lean…
Comprehensive communication program with users…
Enhance current government payments support…
Implement institute differentiated rates - adjust…
Include clause for sharing of costs of unusual site…
Renegotiation mechanism in MCA to address future…
Additional financing cost associated with a more…
Introduce the concepts of trust and reputation of…
Probity arrangements through probity advisors -…
Flexibility to private sector for preparation of entire…
Strategic communication plan should be part of policy The institutional special bodies that can…
Appoint ‘fairness and process auditors’ as a third … The enunciation of a legal act or policy on the part…
Establish public-private interaction forums to…
Respondents
Strategies
Financial Institution Public Sector
Private Sector
Transaction Advisor
Figure 6.6: Model for strategies, shortfalls and deliverable of PPP process
The qualitative analysis of the focused interviews findings concluded with the final tactics of confirming the findings. Miles et al. (2013) suggested two tactics for confirming the findings i.e. ‘looking for negative evidence’ and ‘ruling out spurious relations’. The micro- interlocutor analysis is one of the techniques that has used for ‘looking for negative
evidence’ and the conclusion verified using a rating scale. The confirmations of the respondents’ views on guiding principles, shortfalls and strategies have been done through checking of consensus and dissent view of each respondent on each parameter.
Onwuegbuzie et al. (2009) have suggested that qualitative data gathered through ‘talk’
(interview) could be better analyzed through ‘micro-interlocutor analysis’, wherein the consensus of the respondents is displayed in the form of a matrix. For this analysis, the matrix has been used to identify the negative evidence coded by respondent for each guiding principles, shortfall, and strategies. The matrix is constructed with respondents in the column, and guiding principles/ shortfalls/strategies in a row. The five-point scale shown in Table 6.3 was used to score the eighteen respondents’ view on the degree to which a particular shortfall was present or will affect the sustainability of PPP procurement process; degree to which particular strategies will be able to enhance respective shortfall;
and degree to which particular guiding principles will be adequate to achieve the sustainable infrastructure goals through PPPs. Table 6.4 to 6.6 shows the matrices indicating how many respondents have provided a substantive statement indicating agreement or disagreement with the adequacy of guiding principle, feasibility to include strategies, and occurrence of shortfalls in PPP process respectively. The overall score on the consensus of all the respondents’ view points on each parameter has been calculated as a mean value of all respondent’s score by using above mentioned five-point scale. The mean value of each parameter is provided in the last column of the matrix as an overall score. It could be observed from the overall score for each parameter that the respondents have agreed on the feasibility to inclusion of the strategies in conceptual areas of PPP procurement process except one strategy rated as disagreement (‘early participation of financial institutions’) and except one shortfall rated as neutral (‘lack of transparency and accountability’). Also, the respondents have shown their agreements on the adequacy of guiding principle for achieving of sustainable infrastructure development goals for PPPs.
Table 6.3: Five point scale for scoring of guiding principles, shortfalls, and strategies
Score Strength Description
1 – – (double minus) Strongly disagree 2 – (single minus) Disagree
3 + – (plus minus) Neutral 4 + (single plus) Agreed
5 + + (double plus) Strongly agreed
117
Table 6.4: Matrix for assessing level of consensus amongst respondents on adequacy of guiding principles
Sl.
No.
Respondents
Financial Institution (FI)
Government Sector
(GS) Private Sector (PS) Transaction Advisor’s (TA)
Mean FI1 FI2 FI3 GS1 GS2 GS3 GS4 PS1 PS2 PS3 PS4 PS5 TA1 TA2 TA3 TA4 TA5 TA6
Guiding Principles
1. Environmental protection + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
2. Polluters pay + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
3. Balance risk allocation + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
4. Adaptability and resilience + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + + + + + +
5. Precautionary + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
6. Quality of life + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
7. Creativity & innovation + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
8. Up gradation of knowledge + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
9. Affordable user charges + + + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
10. Social justice + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
11. Equitable resources allocation + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
12. Long term strategic planning + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
13. Maintain natural resources + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
14. Value for money + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
15. Efficient project delivery + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
16. Public participation + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
17. Accountability + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
18. Strong leadership + + + + + + + + + − − + + + + + + + + + + + + +
19. Multidimensional + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
20. Continuum + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
118
Table 6.5: Matrix for assessing level of consensus amongst respondents on feasibility of strategies
Sl.
No.
Strategies to enhance PPP procurement process Interview Respondent Mean
F1 F2 F3 G1 G2 G3 G4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 1. Strategic environmental assessment (SEA) + + + − + + − + − + + + + + + + + − + + + + + + + + − + + + + 2. Climate change (CC) considerations + + − + + + − + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + + + − + + + + + 3. Environmental-friendly & smart-growth technique + + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 4. Early participation of financial institutions − − + − − – – – – + − + − – – + + + – – – – + + + + + – – + – – – – 5. Establish special purpose company (SPC) + − + − + – – + + + – – + + + – – + + + − + − + + − + – – + 6. Adoption of building information modeling (BIM) + − + − + – – + – – + + + + – – + + + + − + – – + 7. Partnering with ULBs or local community-led NGO + − + − + + + + + + + + – – + + + + + + + + − + 8. Include E&S costs & benefits in WLC estimation of VfM + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + – – + + + + + 9. Include long term E&S impact in risk model of VfM + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + – – + 10 Adopt life cycle assessment (LCA) approaches + + − + − + + + + + + + − + – – + + + + + + + + + 11. Employ independent assessor -knowledge of sustainability + + + − + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + 12. Service of specialized sustainability advisors for consultation + + − – – + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + 13. Arrange workshops on attitude change for E&S objectives + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 14. Establish practical ‘on-the-job training’ program + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + – – + + + + + + + + + + + 15. Enunciation of a legal act to allow private participation + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + + + + + + – – + + + + + 16. Establish public-private interaction forums + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + – – + + + + + 17. Incentives for promote to use sustainable materials + + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + – – – – + + + + + + − + + + + + 18. Market mechanisms to develop their own solutions + + + − + + + – – + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + − + + 19. Incentives for adaption/mitigation of CC change strategies + + + − + + + + + – – + − + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + + 20. Law for liability/compensation to pollution affecters/creators + + − + + + + + + + + – – + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + 21. Green procurement criteria to use innovative technologies + − + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + + 22. Include E&S criteria in bid evaluation – – + + + − – – + + + + + + – – + + + – – + + + + + + − + + + + + 23. Additional bidding criteria to promote lean construction + + + + − – – + + + + + + + − + + + + + + + + + + − + – – + + 24. Comprehensive communication program with users + + + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + – – + + + + + + + + + + 25. Enhance government payments support system like VGF + + + + − + + + + + + + – – + + + + − + + + + + − − + – – + +
Contd.
119
Table 6.5 (Contd.)
Sl.
No.
Strategies to enhance PPP procurement process Interview Respondent Mean
F1 F2 F3 G1 G2 G3 G4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 26. Implement institute differentiated rates to adjust charges + + + + − + + + + + + + + + + + + – – + + + + – – + + + 27. Include clause for sharing of costs of unusual site risks + + – – + − + + + + + + + + + + + – – + + + + + + − + + + + + 28. Renegotiation mechanism to address future impacts + + + + + − – – + + + + + + + + + + + – – + + + + − + – – + + 29. Additional financing cost with a more robust financing + + + + − + + − + + + + + + + + – – – – + + + − + − + 30. Introduce the relational contracting (RC) + + – – – – + + – – + − + + + + + + + – – + + + + + + + − + – – + + 31. Probity arrangements through probity advisors + + − + − + + – – – – + + + + + + – – + + – – + + − + + + + 32. Flexibility to private sector for preparation of master plan + + – – – – + + – – + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + − + + + + + 33. Strategic communication plan should be part of policy + + − + − + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + – – + + − + 34. Institutional special bodies to scrutinize projects + + + − + − + + + + + + + – – + + + − + + + + – – + + − + 35. Appoint ‘fairness and process auditors’ as a experts + + − + − − – – + + + – – + + + – – + + + + + + − + + + +
Table 6.6: Matrix for assessing level of consensus amongst respondents on presence of shortfalls
Sl.
No.
Shortfalls in PPP Procurement Process Interview Respondents Mean
F1 F2 F3 G1 G2 G3 G4 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
1. Inadequate EIA and SIA ++ – – + ++ ++ ++ + ++ + + + + + + ++ +– + ++ +
2. Lack of stakeholder’s participation + ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ ++ + ++ + ++ + + +– + ++ ++
3. Inadequate WLC in VfM estimation + ++ ++ ++ ++ ++ + ++ + +– + ++ ++ ++ + + + + ++
4. Lack of knowledge about sustainability + ++ ++ ++ +– ++ + ++ ++ + ++ ++ + + + – + + +
5. Goal conflict between private and public sector + ++ – – ++ – – ++ ++ ++ ++ + + ++ ++ ++ + – – + + +
6. Lack of Incentives to private sector ++ ++ + ++ + ++ ++ ++ + + ++ +– + ++ + – – + + ++
7. Inadequate bid evaluation criteria + – – +– +– ++ – ++ ++ ++ + +– ++ ++ + ++ – – + +– +
8. High user charges for services + +– – – ++ + ++ ++ ++ ++ – +– – – ++ + ++ +– ++ ++ +
9. Lack of risk allocation and mitigation + ++ +– ++ ++ ++ + ++ ++ + ++ ++ + ++ + +– ++ +– +
10. High bidding and transaction cost + ++ +– +– + ++ + ++ ++ + – – + + + ++ – – + + +
11. Lack of transparency and accountability + – – – +– – – +– + +– ++ + +– ++ ++ + ++ – + +– +–