Comparing cost uplift in infrastructure delivery methods : a case based approach

In 2009 the Australian Federal and State governments are expected to have spent some AU$30 billion procuring infrastructure projects. For governments with finite resources but many competing projects, formal capital rationing is achieved through use of Business Cases. These Business cases articulate the merits of investing in particular projects along with the estimated costs and risks of each project. Despite the sheer size and impact of infrastructure projects, there is very little research in Australia, or internationally, on the performance of these projects against Business Case assumptions when the decision to invest is made. If such assumptions (particularly cost assumptions) are not met, then there is serious potential for the misallocation of Australia’s finite financial resources. This research addresses this important gap in the literature by using combined quantitative and qualitative research methods, to examine the actual performance of 14 major Australian government infrastructure projects. The research findings are controversial as they challenge widely held perceptions of the effectiveness of certain infrastructure delivery practices. Despite this controversy, the research has had a significant impact on the field and has been described as ‘outstanding’ and ‘definitive’ (Alliancing Association of Australasia), "one of the first of its kind" (Infrastructure Partnerships of Australia) and "making a critical difference to infrastructure procurement" (Victorian Department of Treasury). The implications for practice of the research have been profound and included the withdrawal by Government of various infrastructure procurement guidelines, the formulation of new infrastructure policies by several state governments and the preparation of new infrastructure guidelines that substantially reflect the research findings. Building on the practical research, a more rigorous academic investigation focussed on the comparative cost uplift of various project delivery strategies was submitted to Australia’s premier academic management conference, the Australian and New Zealand Academy of Management (ANZAM) Annual Conference. This paper has been accepted for the 2010 ANZAM National Conference following a process of double blind peer review with reviewers rating the paper’s overall contribution as "Excellent" and "Good".

How accurate is the identification of serious traffic injuries by Police? The concordance between Police and hospital reported traffic injuries

Police reported crash data are the primary source of crash information in most jurisdictions. However, the definition of serious injury within police-reported data is not consistent across jurisdictions and may not be accurate. With the Australian National Road Safety Strategy targeting the reduction of serious injuries, there is a greater need to assess the accuracy of the methods used to identify these injuries. A possible source of more accurate information relating to injury severity is hospital data. While other studies have compared police and hospital data to highlight the under-reporting in police-reported data, little attention has been given to the accuracy of the methods used by police to identify serious injuries. The current study aimed to assess how accurate the identification of serious injuries is in police-reported crash data, by comparing the profiles of transport-related injuries in the Queensland Road Crash Database with an aligned sample of data from the Queensland Hospital Admitted Patients Data Collection. Results showed that, while a similar number of traffic injuries were recorded in both data sets, the profile of these injuries was different based on gender, age, location, and road user. The results suggest that the ‘hospitalisation’ severity category used by police may not reflect true hospitalisations in all cases. Further, it highlights the wide variety of severity levels within hospitalised cases that are not captured by the current police-reported definitions. While a data linkage study is required to confirm these results, they highlight that a reliance on police-reported serious traffic injury data alone could result in inaccurate estimates of the impact and cost of crashes and lead to a misallocation of valuable resources.