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

The alliance project delivery method is used for approximately one third of all Australian government infrastructure projects representing $8-$10 billion per annum. Despite its widespread use, little is known about the differences between estimated project cost and actual cost over the project lifecycle. This paper presents the findings of research into 14 Australian government alliance case studies investigating the observed cost uplift over each project’s lifecycle. I find that significant cost uplift is likely and that this uplift is greater than that afflicting traditional delivery methods. Furthermore, most of the cost uplift occurs at a different place in the project lifecycle, namely between Business Case and Contractual Commitment.

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".

Reducing the global burden of depression : population level analysis of intervention cost-effectiveness in 14 world regions

International evidence on the cost and effects of interventions for reducing the global burden of depression remain scarce. Aims: To estimate the population-level cost-effectiveness of evidence-based depression interventions and their contribution towards reducing current burden. Method: Primary-care-based depression interventions were modelled at the level of whole populations in 14 epidemiological subregions of the world. Total population-level costs (in international dollars or I$) and effectiveness (disability adjusted life years (DALYs) averted) were combined to form average and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. Results: Evaluated interventions have the potential to reduce the current burden of depression by 10–30%. Pharmacotherapy with older antidepressant drugs, with or without proactive collaborative care, are currently more cost-effective strategies than those using newer antidepressants, particularly in lower-income subregions. Conclusions: Even in resource-poor regions, each DALYaverted by efficient depression treatments in primary care costs less than 1 year of average per capita income, making such interventions a cost-effective use of health resources. However, current levels of burden can only be reduced significantlyif there is a substantialincrease substantial increase intreatment coverage.

Correcting for bias when estimating the cost of hospital-acquired infection : an analysis of lower respiratory tract infections in non-surgical patients

Hospital acquired infections (HAI) are costly but many are avoidable. Evaluating prevention programmes requires data on their costs and benefits. Estimating the actual costs of HAI (a measure of the cost savings due to prevention) is difficult as HAI changes cost by extending patient length of stay, yet, length of stay is a major risk factor for HAI. This endogeneity bias can confound attempts to measure accurately the cost of HAI. We propose a two-stage instrumental variables estimation strategy that explicitly controls for the endogeneity between risk of HAI and length of stay. We find that a 10% reduction in ex ante risk of HAI results in an expected savings of £693 ($US 984).