Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Using qualitative (content) analysis, we provide a framework highlighting the determinants of effective inter-organization information sharing in developing infrastructure projects. We examined the determinants of effective inter-organization information sharing in publicly funded physical infrastructure projects, focusing mainly on health, education, and transportation projects. The literature search identified 2,330 citations. A review of these abstracts led to the retrieval of 86 full-text articles, of which 40 met the inclusion criteria. Coordination and collaboration were identified as two of the most important inter-organization processes required for the successful development of transportation, health, and education infrastructure projects. These two processes are enabled by several elements of inter-organization information sharing such as human resources and expertise; incentives and rewards; and effective contract management and record-keeping. Our review also demonstrated that for organizations to effectively implement the determinants of inter-organization information sharing, they must first ensure they form effective interpersonal and intra-organization information sharing.

Keywords

information sharing government public infrastructure funding

Introduction

“The global infrastructure gap” is commonly used in the field of infrastructure to describe the gap between the need for infrastructure development and the deficiency in funding for it (Dimitriou & Field, 2020; McKinsey Global Institute, 2013). To address current infrastructure investment challenges, experts have recommended several strategies for governments to consider: reducing infrastructure demand, increasing infrastructure investments, and optimizing existing infrastructure (WEF, 2014). However, there is a paucity of literature examining the contribution of different aspects of the infrastructure planning process to project success (Berg & Horrall, 2008; Klein et al., 2016). One area that has not been extensively explored within the realm of infrastructure projects is information sharing (Collinge et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2020).

Publicly funded infrastructure investments are generally described as complex, long, and unlikely to be carried out in isolation at one level or within one unit of government or its agencies (Liu et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2018; Zhao & An, 2016). Funding is typically transferred from a specific level of government authority into a project managed by another public body, sometimes in collaboration with the private sector (Gamper & Charbit, 2014). Managing infrastructure projects requires coordination and collaboration between a complex web of vertical (across levels of government) and horizontal (across sectors and across the same levels of government) interdependencies (Gamper & Charbit, 2014).

In order for the parties involved to collaborate with each other successfully, they must be able to collect and share the necessary information for their infrastructure project (Gamper & Charbit, 2014; Giorno, 2011). During the life cycle of any infrastructure investment, a large amount of information and data, such as project scope, timelines, cost, and material, is produced and should be effectively shared between the project partners (Zhang et al., 2020). However, due to the lengthy and complex nature of infrastructure projects, effective information retention and sharing are considered challenging (Collinge et al., 2009; Zhang et al., 2020). The inability of the partners to participate in effective information sharing can have detrimental effects on the project’s performance, causes delays, increases cost, and leads to inadequate risk assessment (Arif et al., 2015; Cheng et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2020).

This scoping review examines the determinants of effective inter-organization information sharing in the public funding process of physical infrastructure projects, focusing mainly on health, education, and transportation projects. We build on previous work related to inter-organization information sharing (Yang & Maxwell, 2011) and provide a modified framework specific to publicly funded infrastructure projects. Our study maps the available literature on effective information sharing in the public funding process of infrastructure projects, and identifies key concepts, gaps in the literature, as well as sources of evidence to inform practice, policymaking, and future research (Daudt et al., 2013; Tricco et al., 2016). Our framework, in particular, supports the findings of Yang and Maxwell (2011) and expands on them to provide an infrastructure-specific inter-organization information sharing framework. Additionally, we emphasize to funders and providers the importance of determinants critical to effective inter-organization information sharing in the development of publicly funded infrastructure projects and the impact of these determinants on the efficiency of the project. The goal of this is to assist funders and providers in establishing practical strategies and interventions to improve the current state of inter-organization information sharing in the field of infrastructure. Finally, we outline the limits on the current understanding of information sharing in the publicly funded infrastructure planning process that could be explored in future research.

Theory

Transportation, health, education, in addition to the utilities and the water sectors, constitute the basic infrastructure needs for households and businesses (PwC, 2013), with utilities and transportation considered the highest priority in terms of basic infrastructure needs for households and businesses (PwC & Oxford Economics, 2016). When compared to utilities and the water sectors, transportation is the only sector with a gap in terms of investment needs. A recent report showed that globally, transportation investment needs are 30% higher than the current spending; meanwhile, the utilities and water sectors gap is almost negligible (PwC & Oxford Economics, 2016). Typically, the utilities and water sectors have different relationship dynamics and challenges than other infrastructure sectors (Imperial, 2005). The challenges for this field pertain primarily to complex environmental and scientific issues instead of funding issues (Imperial, 2005). As for health and education infrastructure investment needs, despite their importance in providing basic needs for the society and the economy (PwC, 2013), they have been severely understudied. Therefore, we decided to focus our study on the three sectors of the infrastructure field that demonstrated the highest need for investigation: transportation, health, and education.

These sectors are service-oriented sectors geared towards providing basic infrastructure needs for the population (PwC, 2013). They are heavily impacted by population demographic change (PwC, 2013). In most developed countries, the government plays an important role in ensuring the adequacy of these three sectors through funding and oversight (PwC & Oxford Economics, 2016). This is why it is important to find ways to optimize public investments in these sectors. One area that could be improved when it comes to publicly funded infrastructure projects is the flow and retention of information (Collinge et al., 2009).

Given the lengthy multi-phased nature of infrastructure projects, information retention and sharing are considered challenging yet crucial for the project’s success (Zhang et al., 2020). Suppose organizations are unable to effectively share the relevant information with the parties involved. In that case, they could risk jeopardizing the performance of the project, causing delays, increasing cost, and resulting in inadequate risk assessment (Arif et al., 2015; Cheng et al., 2012; Zhang et al., 2020). Information sharing can be in the form of formal documents, informal talks, email and other electronic messages, and faxes (Yang & Wu, 2014). The information shared may be in the form of raw data, analyzed data, and general knowledge (Yang & Wu, 2014).

Therefore, the primary outcome of this scoping review is to synthesize the evidence on the key determinants of effective inter-organization information sharing in the public funding process for physical infrastructure projects such as property, building, technology, and equipment (Klein et al., 2016) in the transportation, education and health sectors. This scoping review builds on a published literature review on information sharing in general (Yang & Maxwell, 2011). Yang and Maxwell reviewed existing literature to identify factors most critical for successful information sharing within public organizations and establish three information sharing frameworks: interpersonal, intra-organizational, and inter-organizational information sharing frameworks (Yang & Maxwell, 2011). Our study focuses mainly on the inter-organizational information sharing framework and reviews it from the lens of the publicly funded infrastructure industry. Our study expands on the Yang and Maxwell framework to provide a modified inter-organization information sharing framework explicitly for the development of publicly funded infrastructure projects.

Material and Methods

The protocol for this study was reviewed by the co-authors and registered with the Open Science Framework. Our methodology was based on the framework outlined by Arksey and O’Malley (2005). The review followed six stages: (1) identifying the research question, (2) identifying relevant studies, (3) selecting studies, (4) charting the data, (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting results, and (6) consulting with four systems experts from business and academia to interpret results (Arksey & O’Malley, 2005). We added an additional step to our review based on the recommendation provided by Levac et al. in 2010, completing a quality appraisal of the studies that met the inclusion criteria (Levac et al., 2010). Our study was also reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist (Tricco et al., 2018). The PRISMA-ScR checklist includes a list of essential items to report when conducting a scoping review. The purpose of the checklist is to ensure completeness of reporting, quality appraisal, and relevance for decision making (Tricco et al., 2018).

Literature Research

We conducted a comprehensive literature search using MEDLINE, JSTOR, PAIS Index, Econ Lit, and SCOPUS from inception until March 2, 2020. The search strategy was created in consultation with an expert librarian using the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist (McGowan et al., 2016) (see Supplemental Material 1). The databases were selected to generate the most relevant studies for our interdisciplinary study. We focused on databases that provide studies examining public administration and policies, project management and procurement, and information management. Finally, the reference lists of all included studies were screened for additional relevant studies using the same eligibility criteria.

Eligibility Criteria

Our scoping review assessed published literature, including peer-reviewed journal articles and book chapters, as well as the grey literature,¹ such as government reports and working papers. Minimum inclusion criteria were:

• The publication reported on organizational behavior or information sharing in publicly funded physical infrastructure projects such as property, buildings, technology, and equipment;

• The publication discussed physical infrastructure projects, specifically in transportation, health, or education; and

• The publication assessed information sharing in unspecified large government projects.

Exclusion criteria were:

• Focus on virtual instead of physical infrastructure projects (i.e., information technology [IT]);

• Focus on entirely privately funded infrastructure projects (OECD, 2011);

• Focus on information sharing in sectors other than infrastructure development;

• No discussion about the investment process;

• Focus on infrastructure project selection rather than information sharing;

• Focus on formal agreements rather than continuous information sharing and informal relationships;

• Focus on utility infrastructure (energy, water, and sewage); and

• Language is other than English.

Citation Management

All citations were imported into the web-based bibliographic manager RefWorks 2.0 (RefWorks-COS, Bethesda, MD). Duplicate citations were removed manually. An excel spreadsheet was generated from RefWorks for the subsequent title and abstract relevance screening and data abstraction from full articles.

Data Screening

After removing duplicate citations, titles and abstracts were reviewed for potential eligibility. The first stage of screening focused on title and abstract review. A screening questionnaire was developed by the first author (RKA) and reviewed by the co-authors (see Supplemental Material 2). The second stage focused on screening the full-text articles of potentially relevant citations for inclusion. Both screening stages were completed independently by two authors (RKA and MA). To ensure the screening questionnaire criteria were clear and reproducible between reviewers, a round of pilot testing was performed prior to title and abstract screening, as well as full-text screening on a random sample of 5 studies by RA and MA.

Data Extraction

Any potentially relevant studies that met inclusion criteria underwent data extraction by the first author (RKA). A data extraction form was developed (see Supplementary Material 3), which included the following elements for extraction:

• Process investigated by the study;

• Barriers, facilitators, and advantages of information sharing;

• The inclusion of an information-sharing framework;

• Sector and funding source of infrastructure projects examined by the study;

• recommendations provided by the study.

A pilot was performed in duplicate for three included articles by two authors (RKA and MA), which was subsequently modified based on feedback from the co-authors. Full data extraction was completed only after a satisfactory agreement was obtained.

Quality Appraisal

We used the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tools provided by the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2021) to evaluate all 40 of our included studies critically. JBI provides 13 critical appraisal tools, each of which addresses a specific type of research method (Buccheri & Sharifi, 2017). The checklist provides the examiner with a list of critical questions to evaluate their selected studies and concludes with an overall appraisal decision of the study (Buccheri & Sharifi, 2017). We choose JBI because it is the only method of critical appraisal that is developed for use in evidence-based practice. It provides tools to evaluate various studies, including qualitative and expert opinions (Buccheri & Sharifi, 2017), both of which constitute the majority of our included studies. A pilot was performed in duplicate for three included articles by two authors (RKA and MA) to ensure consistency in quality appraisal.

Data Summary and Synthesis

The extracted data from included studies were compiled in a single spreadsheet and imported into a spreadsheet program (Microsoft Excel 2020) for validation and coding. Key categorization contents were developed by a single author (RKA) and subsequently reviewed by the co-authors and modified based on feedback. Qualitative (content) analysis was then conducted by the first author (RKA), and the codes developed were tested by a second author (MA) to ensure consistency and quality control (Bengtsson, 2016). Further adjustments were made to the codes after testing.

Results

Study Demographics and Quality Appraisal

A study flow diagram is shown in Figure 1. The literature search identified 2330 publications for title and abstract screening, of which 86 studies were retrieved for full-text review.

Figure 1.

Flowchart of study selection process.

Forty articles met inclusion criteria, 28 (70%) of which were published in 2010 or later. Table 1 below shows the full list of our included studies.

Table 1.

Summary of Included Studies.

#	First author	Year	Title	Main process examined*
1	Agranoff	2014	Managing Collaborative Performance: Changing the Boundaries of the State?	Collaboration
2	Ahmad	2015	Involving the Private Sector and PPPs in Financing Public Investments: Some opportunities and challenges	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
3	Akinkugbe	2013	The Dilemma of Public–Private Partnerships as a Vehicle for the Provision of Regional Transport Infrastructure Development in Africa	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
4	Aluonzi	2016	Contract Management and Performance of Road Maintenance Projects: The Case of Arua Municipality	Contract Management
5	Amirkhanyan	2009	Collaborative Performance Measurement: Examining and Explaining the Prevalence of Collaboration in State and Local Government Contracts	Collaboration
6	Aslan	2014	How Do Countries Measure, Manage, and Monitor Fiscal Risks Generated by Public-Private Partnerships?	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
7	Bakvis	2010	Policy Coordination in Federal Systems: Comparing Intergovernmental Processes and Outcomes in Canada and the United States	Coordination
8	Becker	2005	Public-Private Partnerships Balancing Financial Returns, Risks, and Roles of the Partners	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
9	Berg	2008	Networks of Regulatory Agencies as Regional Public Goods: Improving Infrastructure Performance	Networks
10	Bloomfield	2006	The Challenging Business of Long-Term Public-Private Partnerships: Reflections on Local Experience	Contract Management
11	Bloomfield	2011	Long-Term Infrastructure Partnerships: Contracting Risks and Risk-Reduction Strategies	Risk
12	Carbonara	2018	Fostering innovation in public procurement through public private partnerships	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
13	Cerra	2017	Highways to Heaven: Infrastructure Determinants and Trends in Latin America and the Caribbean	Infrastructure
14	Dawes	1996	Interagency Information Sharing: Expected Benefits, Manageable Risks	Information Sharing
15	De Palma	2012	Towards a Principle-Agent Based Typology of Risks in Public Private Partnerships	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
16	Dulaimi	2003	Organizational Motivation and Interorganizational Interaction in Construction Innovation in Singapore	Infrastructure
17	Forrer	2010	Public- Private Partnerships and the Public Accountability Question	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
18	Gamper	2014	Coordination of Infrastructure Investment Across Levels of Government	Coordination
19	Giorno	2011	Meeting Infrastructure Needs in Australia	Infrastructure
20	Gomes	2019	Towards Excellence in Managing the Public-Sector Project Cycle: a TQM context	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
21	Han	2016	Trilateral Cooperation with China: Sharing China’s Development Experience through Innovative Partnerships	Cooperation
22	Helm	2013	British Infrastructure Policy and The Gradual Return of the State	Infrastructure
23	Hilvert	2013	Collaborative Service Delivery: What Every Local Government Manager Should Know	Coordination
24	Ibrahim	2010	Construction Procurement Strategies of National Health Services in the UK: A Critical Review	Infrastructure
25	Jamali	2004	Success and Failure mechanisms of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in developing countries	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
26	Kincaid	2011	Big Questions" about Intergovernmental Relations and Management: Who Will Address Them?	Interorganizational Relations
27	Koppenjan	2009	"Public – Private Partnerships in Urban Infrastructures: Reconciling Private Sector Participation and Sustainability"	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
28	Krueathep	2010	Why Do Agencies Work Together? The Determinants of Network Formation at the Subnational Level of Government in Thailand	Networks
29	Martin	2012	Public-Private Partnerships in Global Health: Addressing Issues of Public Accountability, Risk Management and Governance	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
30	Minnery	2001	Inter-organizational Approaches to Regional Growth Management	Interorganizational Relations
31	Ni	2012	The Risk-Averting Game of Transport Public-Private Partnership	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
32	Oronje	2014	Agency Level Management of Roads Maintenance Levy Fund: Evidence from Kenya	Infrastructure
33	Radin	1992	Rural Development Councils: An Intergovernmental Coordination Experiment	Rural Development
34	Sagalyn	2011	Public-Private Partnerships and Urban Governance: Coordinates and Policy Issues	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
35	Schaeffer	2002	Toward an Understanding of Types of Public-Private Cooperation	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
36	Silvestre	2012	Public-Private Partnerships/Private Finance Initiatives in Portugal	The Public-Private-Partnerships process
37	Sundberg	1989	Allocation Mechanisms in Public Provision of Transport and Communication Infrastructure	Infrastructure
38	Tait	2013	Trust and Governance in Regional Planning	Collaboration
39	Torres	2011	Senegal’s Infrastructure: A Continental Perspective	Networks
40	Wong	2014	Planning for Infrastructure: Challenges to Northern England	Infrastructure

*Information sharing in infrastructure planning was a secondary process examined in each one of our included studies.

Table 2 summarizes the characteristics of the included papers. The types of papers included 17/40 (43%) were reviews, 10/40 (25%) were qualitative studies, 7/40 (18%) were mixed-methods studies, and 6/40 (15%) were grey literature, such as government reports and working papers. The cases studied were spread globally, with 10/40 (25%) in North America and 7/40 (18%) in Europe. Included studies examined the following three processes: infrastructure project management, inter-organization relations, and the Public-Private Partnership Process (PPP). PPP is defined as a contract between a public sector authority and a private party. The private party provides a public service and assumes most of the project’s financial, technical, and construction risks (Aslan & Duarte, 2014).

Table 2.

General Characteristics of the Included Studies.

Study characteristics (N = 40)	Sum	%
Year of publication
1985–1989	1	3
1990–1994	1	3
1995–1999	1	3
2000–2004	3	8
2005–2009	6	15
2010–2014	22	55
2015–2019	6	15
Study type
Qualitative	10	25
Mixed method	7	18
Review	17	43
Grey literature	6	15
Continent of study
North America	10	25
South America	1	3
Africa	4	10
Asia	4	10
Australia	2	5
Europe	7	18
Multiple Continents	7	18
Not specified	5	13
Process examined
Infrastructure project management	13	33
Interorganizational relations	13	33
The public private partnership process (PPP or P3)	14	35

Table 3 provides a quality appraisal summary of the included studies using the Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tools. All studies were at low risk of bias in the design, conduct, and analysis. The average score of quality appraisal for text and opinion studies, which included reviews and grey literature, was 85%. Common factors which reduced the quality appraisal score were a lack of reporting of whether the source of study has a standing in the field of expertise (McArthur et al., 2015). The average score for qualitative studies was 80% due to the lack of reporting of ethics approval in all studies. Qualitative study scores were also impacted by the lack of addressing the researcher’s influence on the study, which was only clearly reported in 30% of the studies included (Lockwood & Munn, 2015). The mixed-methods studies, including analytical cross-sectional studies and a single prevalence study, had an average quality appraisal score of 100% (Moola et al., 2020; Munn et al., 2015).

Table 3.

Quality Appraisal of Included Studies (Joanna Briggs Critical Appraisal Tools).

Study type (N = 40)	%
Text and opinion (N = 23)	85
Qualitative research (N = 10)	80
Analytical cross-sectional study (N = 6)	100
Prevalence study (N = 1)	100

Data Synthesis

A summary of the infrastructure sector and funding type for the projects from the included studies is shown in Table 4. 21/40 (53%) of the studies included focused on transportation infrastructure, followed by 4/40 (10%) on health, and 2/40 (5%) on education. 22/40 (55%) of the studies examined projects funded through the PPP, followed by 16/40 (40%) examining publicly funded infrastructure projects.

Table 4.

Project Infrastructure Sectors and Funding Type.

Study (N = 40)	Sum	%
Most frequently reported infrastructure sectors
Transportation	21	53
Education	2	5
Health	4	10
Other	1	3
Not specified	17	43
Project funding type
Public	16	40
Public Private Partnership (PPP)	22	55
Private	0	0
Not specified	11	28

Given that the majority of the projects examined in our included studies are either PPP or publicly funded and they both require inter-organization collaboration, it was only expected that the majority of the studies, 26/40 (65%), include elements of inter-organization information sharing. Additionally, 12/40 (30%) of the studies that included elements of inter-organization communication also included elements of intra-organization and interpersonal information sharing. Table 5 summarizes the different elements and facilitators of information sharing that were summarized by Yang and Maxwell and confirmed by our study (Yang & Maxwell, 2011). The majority of the studies we included identified the following elements of inter-organization information sharing as relevant to the successful planning and management of transportation, health, and education infrastructure projects: 33/40 (83%) staff retention, expertise, and knowledge; 23/40 (58%) rewards and incentives: political, financial, risk sharing, conflict resolution, and data gathering; 18/40 (45%) accountability and transparency; 15/40 (38%) trust; 14/40 (25%) interpersonal skills: commitment, willingness to share information, positive attitude, confidence and effort; and 10/40 (25%) organizational characteristics and values: history, size, loyalty, and compliance.

Table 5

. Elements of Information Sharing.

Categories (N = 40)	Elements	Sum	%
Only Inter-organization (N = 26) (% = 65%)	Human resources and expertise	33	83
	Incentives and rewards	23	58
	Accountability and transparency	18	45
	Trust	15	38
	Interpersonal skills: Competition, interests, resistance	14	35
	Organizational characteristics and values	10	25
	Policy alignment: Procedures, controls, workflow	8	20
	Political factors	8	20
	Quality	7	18
	Reducing bureaucratic and regulatory barriers	7	18
	Leadership	4	10
	Technology capability	4	10
	Negotiation skills	2	5
Only intra-organization		2	5
Only interpersonal		0	0
All		11	28
Not specified		1	3

*The purpose of this table is to summarize the different elements and facilitators of information sharing that were summarized by Yang & Maxwell, 2011 and confirmed by our study.

Table 6 summarizes additional elements of information sharing that have been identified as relevant for the success of infrastructure projects in the studies we included, which were not a part of the Yang and Maxwell framework (Yang & Maxwell, 2011). The majority of the studies we included identified the influence of the following elements of inter-organization information sharing for the successful planning and management of transportation, health, and education infrastructure projects: 22/40 (55%) frequency of communication and reporting; 20/40 (50%) alignment of goals; 11/40 (28%) contracts management, challenges, and records; 10/40 (25%) reducing information asymmetry; 9/40 (23%) and clarity of information, goals, and policies.

Table 6.

Additional Elements of Information Sharing.

Term (N = 40)	Sum	%
Frequency	22	55
Alignment of goals	20	50
Contracts and record retention	11	28
Reducing information asymmetry	10	25
Clarity	9	23
Channels for information sharing	7	18
Training	5	13
Confidentiality	5	13
Standardized information	3	8
Vision	2	5

Table 7 summarizes the most common inter-organization processes required to manage infrastructure projects successfully. Almost half of the studies we included 19/40 (48%), highlighted the importance of collaboration between organizations. Collaboration is defined as the process of sharing resources and activities between organizations for the purpose of achieving an outcome that could not be achieved by a single organization (Hilvert & Swindell, 2013). 15/40 (38%) studies we included considered the process of coordination essential for the success of infrastructure projects. Coordination can consist of informal efforts, formal agreements, or full mergers between organizations (Schaeffer & Loveridge, 2002). Our results indicate that organizations could consider engaging in at least one of these processes to successfully manage an infrastructure project.

Table 7.

Essential Inter-Organizational Relations Processes for Managing Infrastructure Projects.

Process (N = 40)	Sum	%
Collaboration	19	48
Coordination	15	38
Integration	8	20
Cooperation	5	13

Table 8 summarizes the determinants that were frequently analyzed by our included studies and were considered relevant for effective inter-organization information sharing in the development of transportation, health, and education infrastructure projects. We also found a variation in the frequency of appearance and study of certain determinants over others. As shown below, over 50% of our included studies highlighted the importance of human resources and expertise, incentives and rewards, frequency, and alignment of goals in ensuring effective inter-organization information sharing during the development of publicly funded infrastructure projects. Meanwhile, less than 30% of our included studies highlighted the importance of contracts and records, organizational characteristics and values, reducing information asymmetry and clarity in ensuring effective inter-organization information sharing during the development of publicly funded infrastructure projects.

Table 8.

Determinants of Effective Inter-Organization Information.

Element	Sum	%
Effective inter- organization information sharing	26	65
Human resources and expertise	33	83
Incentives and rewards	23	58
Frequency	22	55
Alignment of goals	20	50
Accountability and transparency	18	45
Trust	15	38
Interpersonal skills: Competition, interests, resistance	14	35
Contracts and records	11	28
Organizational characteristics and values	10	25
Reducing information asymmetry	10	25
Clarity	9	23
Effective inter- organization , intra- organization and interpersonal information sharing	12	30

Using the determinants above, we generated Figure 2 below, which illustrates an inter-organization information sharing framework explicitly for the development of transportation, health, and education infrastructure projects. The framework shows that coordination and collaboration are two of the most frequently studied inter-organization processes required for the success of transportation, health, and education infrastructure projects. The framework suggests that in order for organizations to successfully collaborate with each other to develop an infrastructure project, they must ensure an effective flow of information from within and between the organizations. We found that it is challenging for organizations to implement effective inter-organization information sharing without first implementing effective interpersonal and intra-organization information sharing.

Figure 2.

Effective information sharing in the development of infrastructure projects.

Discussion

Our study reviewed existing literature on the determinants of effective inter-organization information sharing in the public funding process of transportation, health, and education physical infrastructure projects. Our results suggest that successful projects require active engagement with the partners involved, most frequently through coordination and collaboration.

Information sharing is a foundational element of inter-organization processes for the development of infrastructure projects (Gamper & Charbit, 2014). Frequent, clear, and accurate information sharing between organizations leading infrastructure projects facilitates project alignment, improves reporting, enhances accountability, motivates staff, strengthens financial management, and expedites the planning process (Gamper & Charbit, 2014; Oronje et al., 2014). Organizations are more likely to engage with each other if they possess any of the following traits: they are large in size, which enables them to absorb additional costs if they arise as opposed to smaller organizations with fewer resources; they have experienced leaders and staff, and thus their transaction cost is lower due to their expertise; and there are both political and financial elements that incentivize organizations to collaborate with each other (Gamper & Charbit, 2014; Krueathep et al., 2010). Our review suggests that the organization’s characteristics greatly impact the staff’s willingness to share information. Larger and more established organizations are more able to create platforms to facilitate information sharing and mitigate risks associated with the information sharing process.

Our scoping review has confirmed the importance of all elements of inter-organization information sharing explored by both Dawes and Yang and Maxwell (Dawes, 1996; Yang & Maxwell, 2011). In addition, since our study focused strictly on infrastructure projects, we were able to identify several elements that were particularly important to the infrastructure planning process. We also found a variation in the frequency of appearance and study of certain determinants over others. We found a greater emphasis on the importance of staff retention and expertise for all partnering organizations, including project management, accounting, legal, construction, and policy knowledge (Gomes et al., 2019; Oronje et al., 2014). The significance of expertise in reducing inefficiencies and promoting innovation in the infrastructure funding process was also confirmed by a recently published Canadian study (Teja et al., 2020). Given the complex nature of infrastructure projects and the need for expertise, staff retention and effective knowledge transfer are crucial in reducing construction delays as new staff will require time to be trained and understand institutional dynamics (Oronje et al., 2014).

Reducing information asymmetry was another important element of inter-organization information sharing highlighted in our findings. In infrastructure projects, the construction firm is often better informed about the project than the public body, both in terms of construction risks and external factors that could impact project implementation (de Palma et al., 2012). Trust, alignment of goals, and having the applicable expertise working for the public body can help verify the information provided by the construction firm and reduce the risk of information asymmetry in infrastructure projects (Ahmad et al., 2015; Gamper & Charbit, 2014; Sagalyn, 2011). Our study also emphasized the importance of having clear contracts and effective record-keeping in the management of infrastructure projects (Carbonara & Pellegrino, 2018). Given the complexity of managing infrastructure projects and the length of their planning and implementation, contracts are an effective way to document reporting requirements, outcomes, and anticipated risks, as well as to align goals.

Our findings identified that providing certain incentives is key to ensuring effective information sharing. The incentives may be political or financial. For example, with effective information sharing, politicians can have access to data that would allow them to better understand their constituents’ infrastructure needs. Financial incentives may include funding to support training/educational programs or travel expenses (Berg & Horrall, 2008). Effective information sharing can improve needs analyses, service definitions and planning, program evaluation, risk sharing, conflict resolution, and public services integration (Dawes, 1996). In some cases, organizations are disincentivized to participate in accurate information sharing. This could be due to personal motives such as competition, political reasons, reluctancy to share power, and complex organizational structures (Gamper & Charbit, 2014).

Implications and Future Direction

Our study, which generated an inter-organization information sharing framework explicitly for the development of infrastructure projects, outlines to funders and providers the importance of determinants that influence the effectiveness of inter-organization information sharing in the planning and management of publicly funded infrastructure projects and the impact of these determinants on the efficiency of the project. To support improving inter-organization information sharing in infrastructure planning and guide future research, we offer several practical recommendations and directions for future studies. In terms of practical implementation of our findings: first, our study found that in order to optimize resources and ensure efficient planning of infrastructure projects, organizations should be willing and have the mechanisms in place to enable them to participate in effective collaboration and coordination with the partnering organizations. Second, organizations could benefit from using our framework to conduct a quality review of their current enablers of inter-organization information sharing. For example, our framework suggests that staff retention and technical expertise play an important role in enabling effective inter-organization information sharing. Organizations could benefit from evaluating their current staff and knowledge retention trends and put in place strategies to preserve them. Finally, we also suggest that organizations evaluate their current interpersonal and intra-organization information sharing enablers to ensure they have the ability to participate in inter-organization information sharing. As demonstrated in our framework, it is considered challenging for the organization to effectively share information with other organizations without first ensuring their staff willingness to sharing information within their own organization.

Our study contributes to the growing research on efficient infrastructure planning by addressing the effectiveness of information sharing in the process. As shown in our results, almost 60% of the studies that met our inclusion from across five databases were either reviews or grey literature. This demonstrates the need for more primary research in the field. Our paper produces a framework that supports the findings of Yang and Maxwell (Yang & Maxwell, 2011) on inter-organization information sharing and expands on them to provide a modified framework for effective inter-organization information sharing specifically for the development of infrastructure projects. Our expansion is based on adding factors specific to infrastructure projects such as the importance of frequency of communication between partners, alignment of goals, the necessity of contracts and record retention, and the need to reduce information asymmetry.

Additionally, Yang and Maxwell’s work (Yang & Maxwell, 2011) establishes three separate information sharing frameworks: interpersonal, intra-organization, and inter-organization; meanwhile, our framework shows that in order for organizations to successfully collaborate with each other to plan and manage an infrastructure project, the three frameworks must build off of each other. In other words, our study showed that for organizations managing publicly funded infrastructure projects, it is essential to ensure effective flow of information from within and between the organizations. Our study showed that it is challenging for organizations to implement effective inter-organization information sharing without first implementing effective interpersonal and intra-organization information sharing. This is likely due to the nature of publicly funded infrastructure projects which requires collaboration and coordination across different levels of authority and the involvement of a wide range of technical expertise (Gomes et al., 2019; Oronje et al., 2014).

Although the importance of interpersonal and intra-organization information sharing is clearly articulated in our study, we only focused on analyzing the specifics of inter-organization information sharing. We believe that further research is needed to define the determinants of effective intra-organization and interpersonal information sharing in the planning and management of publicly funded infrastructure projects. Given that we found a variation in the frequency of appearance and study of certain determinants over others, further investigation is needed to understand why certain determinants of effective inter-organization information sharing are more studied than others. In addition, future research is needed to evaluate the fiscal cost, opportunity cost, and cost-effectiveness of enhancing information sharing in the public infrastructure planning process. Case studies are also needed to investigate how different jurisdictions are performing with regard to information sharing during the infrastructure planning process, especially for understudied areas such as health and education. There is also a need to further investigate case studies where inter-organization information sharing hindered the infrastructure planning process. Finally, we believe case studies are needed to test the effectiveness of our model, particularly in terms of information sharing between public and private partners.

Limitations

This study has several limitations. First, 17/40 (43%) of the studies included did not specify the infrastructure sector and examined the infrastructure funding process in a general sense without providing sector-specific information. Additionally, 11/40 (28%) of the studies did not specify the funding type for the project. It is also important to note that 23/40 (58%) more than half of the publications were either reviews or grey literature, and thus their results were not based on primary research. However, this limitation reaffirms the need for our study and further future primary studies in this area. Finally, there are three limitations associated with the search strategy of this study. First, given that we used five different databases to find relevant studies to include in this study, our search terms had to be modified in certain cases to accommodate the different search criteria of the databases. Second, given that the search strategy of this study limited the areas of interest to specifically information sharing within publicly funded infrastructure projects, it is possible that may have led to a higher frequency of appearance of some of the determinants of effective information sharing we outlined in this paper. Finally, although we used 5 different databases to conduct our search, due to the broad nature of the topic there could be other databases that we did not cover.

Conclusion

We examined the determinants of effective information sharing in the public funding of infrastructure projects, focusing on health, education, and transportation projects. We reviewed a total of 2,330 studies, of which 40 studies met inclusion criteria. Our framework confirms that the inter-organization information sharing factors that Yang and Maxwell (Yang & Maxwell, 2011) outlined are applicable to the planning and management of infrastructure projects, and it expands on them by adding factors specific to infrastructure projects. Our study found that the essence of the two most frequently studied processes in the management of infrastructure projects: coordination and collaboration, is inter-organization information sharing. Although several factors influence the effectiveness of inter-organization information sharing, our study concluded that human resources and expertise; incentives and rewards; frequency of communication; alignment of goals; accountability and transparency; trust; interpersonal skills; effective contract management and record-keeping; organizational characteristics and values; willingness to reduce information asymmetry; and clarity are the most frequently studied factors when it comes to the successful management of public infrastructure projects. Other less frequently studied factors include policy alignment, political factors, quality, reducing bureaucratic and regulatory barriers, leadership, technology capabilities, negotiation skills, channels for information sharing, training, confidentiality, standardized information, and vision.

Our study also found that it is challenging for organizations to implement effective inter-organization information sharing without first implementing effective interpersonal and intra-organization information sharing. This is likely due to the nature of publicly funded infrastructure projects which requires collaboration and coordination across different levels of authority and the involvement of a wide range of technical expertise (Gomes et al., 2019; Oronje et al., 2014).

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Determinants of Effective Information Sharing in Publicly Funded Infrastructure Projects: A Scoping Review

Supplemental Material for Determinants of Effective Information Sharing in Publicly Funded Infrastructure Projects: A Scoping Review by Rayeh Kashef Al-Ghetaa, James Shaw, Mostafa Alabousi, David Klein, Daniel Imtiaz, Bijan Teja, and Adalsteinn Brown in Public Works Management & Policy

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Determinants of Effective Information Sharing in Publicly Funded Infrastructure Projects: A Scoping Review

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Determinants of Effective Information Sharing in Publicly Funded Infrastructure Projects: A Scoping Review

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Rayeh Kashef Al-Ghetaa

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

Appendix

Abbreviations

Author Biographies

Rayeh Kashef Al-Ghetaa: is a PhD student at DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University specializing in Health Management. Rayeh has a special interest in infrastructure, communication, and organizational relations. Rayeh’s research interest developed from her experience working with stakeholders to plan and manage the process for constructing numerous publicly funded health infrastructure projects. Aside from her practical experience, Rayeh also holds a Master's degree in Public Service and a Master’s degree in Health Service Research.

Dr. James Andrew Shaw: is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Physical Therapy Temerty Faculty of Medicine and the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation at the University of Toronto, physiotherapist and Scientist at Women’s College Hospital’s Institute for Health System Solutions and Virtual Care. Drawing on social science methods to understand why and how health and social care providers can better work together, his research helps to inform practical approaches to integrating care at policy, organizational, and provider levels. Jay is also the Research Director of Artificial Intelligence, Ethics and Health at the Joint Centre for Bioethics at University of Toronto.

Dr. Mostafa Alabousi: is a Medical Resident in the Department of Radiology at McMaster University, Canada. He has a special research interest in imaging and education. Dr. Alabousi formerly served on the Radiology journal and the Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal editorial boards.

Dr. David Klein: is an academic critical care physician at St. Michael’s Health and Assistant Professor at the University of Toronto in Medicine and Public Health. He has published on healthcare capital and new models of care in journals including CMAJ and JAMA. In addition, he is a member of the Health Sector Audit Board for the Province of Ontario.

Dr. Imtiaz Daniel: is a senior healthcare professional specializing in performance measurement and health services funding. Dr. Daniel is currently the Chief, Research and Analysis at the Ontario Hospital Association and he devotes much of his time into management, operations and the planning of hospital services in Ontario. He serves on the Board of Directors at Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences which is a public teaching hospital providing a range of specialized assessment and treatment services to those living with complex mental illness. Dr. Daniel is well known in the classroom both nationally and internationally educating future healthcare professionals on leadership, performance management and funding systems.

Dr. Bijan Teja: is a staff physician in anaesthesiology, perioperative medicine and critical care medicine at St. Michael's Hospital, University of Toronto. He holds a Doctor of Medicine and Master of Business Administration (dual degree) from Dartmouth College and is also completing a PhD in Clinical Epidemiology at the University of Toronto. Dr. Teja's research is focused on strengthening capital investment in healthcare, improving cost-effectiveness in peri-operative medicine, and improving care processes in critical care medicine.

Dr. Adalsteinn Brown: is the Dean of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto. Past roles include senior leadership roles in policy and strategy within the Ontario government, founding roles in start-up companies, and extensive work on performance assessment. He received his undergraduate degree in government from Harvard University and his doctorate from the University of Oxford, where he was a Rhodes Scholar.

References

Agranoff

(2014). Managing collaborative performance: Changing the boundaries of the state? Public Performance and Management Review, 29(1), 18–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2005.11051856

Ahmad

Bhattacharya

Vinella

Xiao

(2015). Involving the private sector and public-private partnerships in financing investments: Public opportunities and challenges. https://greengrowthknowledge.org/research/involving-private-sector-and-public-private-partnerships-financing-investments-public

Akinkugbe

O. D.

(2013). The dilemma of Public-Private partnerships as a vehicle for the provision of regional transport infrastructure development in Africa. Law and Development Review, 6(2), Article 18. https://doi.org/10.1515/ldr-2013-0018

Aluonzi

G. N.

Oluka

Nduhura

(2016). Contract management and performance of road maintenance projects: The case of arua municipality. Universal Journal of Management, 4(10), 550–558. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujm.2016.041004

Amirkhanyan

A. A.

(2009). Collaborative performance measurement: Examining and explaining the prevalence of collaboration in state and local government contracts. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 523–554. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun022

Arif

Lodi

S. H.

Azhar

(2015). Factors influencing accuracy of construction project cost estimates in Pakistan: Perception and reality. International Journal of Construction Management, 15(1), 59–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2015.1012141

Arksey

O’Malley

(2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616

Aslan

Duarte

(2014). How do countries measure, manage, and monitor fiscal risks Generated by public-private partnerships? Chile, Peru, South Africa, Turkey (policy research working papers). The World Bank.

Bakvis

Browny

(2010). Policy coordination in federal systems: Comparing intergovernmental processes and outcomes in Canada and the United States. Publius, 40(3), 484–507. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjq011

10.

Becker

Patterson

(2005). Public: Private partnerships: Balancing financial returns, risks, and roles of the partners. Public Performance and Management Review, 29(2), 125–144.

11.

Bengtsson

(2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001

12.

Berg

S. V.

Horrall

(2008). Networks of regulatory agencies as regional public goods: Improving infrastructure performance. Review of International Organizations, 3(2), 179–200. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-007-9028-8

13.

Bloomfield

(2006). The challenging business of long-term public-private partnerships: Reflections on local experience. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 400–411. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00597.x

14.

Bloomfield

Ahern

F. D.

(2011). Long-Term infrastructure partnerships: Contracting risks and risk-reduction strategies, 43(1), 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323X11400435

15.

Buccheri

R. K.

Sharifi

(2017). Critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines for evidence-based practice. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing, 14(6), 463–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12258

16.

Carbonara

Pellegrino

(2018). Fostering innovation in public procurement through public private partnerships. Journal of Public Procurement, 18(3), 257–280. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOPP-09-2018-016

17.

Cerra

Cuevas

Goes

Karpowics

Matheson

Samake

Vtyurina

(2017). Highways to heaven: Infrastructure determinants and trends in Latin America and the Caribbean. Journal of Infrastructure Policy and Development, 1(2), Article 31.

18.

Cheng

E. W. L.

Ryan

Kelly

(2012). Exploring the perceived influence of safety management practices on project performance in the construction industry. Safety Science, 50(2), 363–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.09.016

19.

Collinge

Harty

Liu

Tang

(2009). Improving information sharing across construction stakeholders: An organizational semiotics approach. In: Joint International Symposium 2009. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265849140_Improving_information_sharing_across_construction_stakeholders_an_organizational_semiotics_approach

20.

Daudt

H. M. L.

Van Mossel

Scott

S. J.

(2013). Enhancing the scoping study methodology: A large, inter-professional team’s experience with Arksey and O’malley’s framework. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13(1), 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-48

21.

Dawes

S. S

. (1996). Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manageable risks. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3), 377–394. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199622)15:3<377::AID-PAM3>3.0.CO;2-F

22.

de Palma

Leruth

Prunier

(2012). Towards a principal-agent based typology of risks in public-private partnerships. Reflets et Perspectives de La Vie Économique, LI(2), Article 57. https://doi.org/10.3917/rpve.512.0057

23.

Dimitriou

H. T.

Field

B. G.

(2020). Mega infrastructure projects as agents of change: New perspectives on “the global infrastructure gap”.

24.

Dulaimi

M. F.

Ling

F. Y. Y.

Bajracharya

(2003). Organizational motivation and inter-organizational interaction in construction innovation in Singapore. Construction Management and Economics, 21(3), 307–318. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144619032000056144

25.

Forrer

Kee

J. E.

Newcomer

K. E.

Boyer

(2010). Public-private partnerships and the public accountability question. Public Administration Review, 70(3), 475–484. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02161.x

26.

Gamper

Charbit

(2014). Coordination of infrastructure investment across levels of government. In ICEPP Working Papers. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/icepp/16

27.

Giorno

(2011). Meeting Infrastructure Needs in Australia.

28.

Gomes

C. F.

Small

M. H.

Yasin

M. M.

(2019). Towards excellence in managing the public-sector project cycle: A TQM context. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 32(2), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-11-2017-0315

29.

Han

(2016). Trilateral cooperation with China | UNDP in China. https://www.cn.undp.org/content/china/en/home/library/south-south-cooperation/trilateral-cooperation-with-china-.html

30.

Helm

(2013). British infrastructure policy and the gradual return of the state. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 29(2), 287–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxrep/grt018

31.

Hilvert

Swindell

(2013). Collaborative service delivery: What every local government manager should know. State and Local Government Review, 45(4), 240–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160323x13513908

32.

Ibrahim

A. D.

Price

Khalfan

M. M. A.

Dainty

(2010). Construction procurement strategies of national health service in the UK: A critical review. Journal of Public Procurement, 10(1), 31–67. https://doi.org/10.1108/jopp-10-01-2010-b002

33.

Imperial

M. T.

(2005). Using collaboration as a governance strategy. Administration & Society, 37(3), 281–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399705276111

34.

Jamali

(2004). Success and failure mechanisms of public private partnerships (PPPs) in developing countries. Insights from the Lebanese context. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 17(5), 414–430. https://doi.org/10.1108/09513550410546598

35.

Joanna Briggs Institute . (2021). Critical-appraisal-tools - critical appraisal tools | Joanna Briggs Institute. https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools

36.

Kincaid

Stenberg

C. W.

(2011). “Big questions” about intergovernmental relations and management: Who will address them? Public Administration Review, 71(2), 196–202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02330.x

37.

Klein

D. J.

Brown

A. D.

Detsky

A. S.

(2016). Investing wisely in health care capital. JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, 316(15), 1543–1544. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.10605

38.

Koppenjan

J. F. M.

Enserink

(2009). Public-private partnerships in urban infrastructures: Reconciling private sector participation and sustainability. Public Administration Review, 69(2), 284–296. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2008.01974.x

39.

Krueathep

Riccucci

N. M.

Suwanmala

(2010). Why do agencies work together? The determinants of network formation at the subnational level of government in Thailand. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(1), 157–185. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mun013

40.

Levac

Colquhoun

O’Brien

K. K.

(2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5(1), Article 69. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-69

41.

Liu

Xue

Zou

P. X. W.

(2018). Why do individuals engage in collective actions against major construction projects?—An empirical analysis based on Chinese data. International Journal of Project Management, 36(4), 612–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.02.004

42.

Lockwood

C. S.

Munn

Porritt

(2015). Qualitative research synthesis: Methodological guidance for systematic reviewers utilizing meta-aggregation. International Journal Evidence Based Healthcare, 13(3), 179–187.

43.

Martin

M. H.

Halachmi

(2012). Public-private partnerships in global health: Addressing issues of public accountability, risk management and governance. Public. Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 189–212.

44.

McArthur

Klugarova

Yan

Florescu

(2015). Innovations in the systematic review of text and opinion. International Journal Evidence Based Healthcare, 2015, 188–195.

45.

McGowan

Sampson

Salzwedel

D. M.

Cogo

Foerster

Lefebvre

(2016). PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 75, 40–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021

46.

McKenzie

(2022). Grey literature: What it is & how to find it | SFU Library. Simon Fraser University. https://www.lib.sfu.ca/help/research-assistance/format-type/grey-literature

47.

McKinsey Global Institute . (2013). Infrastructure productivity: How to save $1 trillion a year McKinsey Global Institute McKinsey Infrastructure Practice.

48.

Minnery

(2001). Inter-organisational approaches to regional growth management: A case study in south east Queensland. The Town Planning Review, 72(1), 25–44.

49.

Moola

Munn

Tufanaru

Aromataris

Sears

Sfetcu

Currie

Qureshi

Mattis

Lisy

(2020). Systematic reviews of etiology and risk. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI.

50.

Munn

Moola

Lisy

Riitano

DC.

(2015). Methodological guidance for systematic reviews of observational epidemiological studies reporting prevalence and incidence data. International Journal Evidence Based Healthcare.

51.

A. Y.

(2012). The risk-averting game of transport public-private partnership: Lessons from the adventure of California’s state route 91 express lanes. Public Performance and Management Review, 36(2), 253–274. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576360205

52.

Oronje

D. O.

Rambo

C. M.

Odundo

P. A.

(2014). Agency level management of roads maintenance levy fund: Evidence from Kenya. Global Journal of Business Research, 8(1).

53.

PwC . (2013). Capital project and infrastructure spending Outlook to 2025. www.pwc.com/cpi-outlook2025

54.

PwC & Oxford Economics . (2016). Capital project and infrastructure spending outlook. Agile Strategies for changing markets. https://d2rpq8wtqka5kg.cloudfront.net/389138/open20170919030300.pdf?Expires=1618507266&Signature=Xsh--∼uiAvgAq-77ch4BgiztWfvLiUfnCXjsWrhHEa47R9aNv4ZeHfkOBd5oBzrHftp0z mzh7OBRlOX9MKQnf8lZHc∼mgQxJ06-siCR40S1bK7PxAoEb6r01NRi3Ta60e4snPM3JieiFEXMLhN-6RU6KVSeAv7QGn- 0OSNfGHBum9WSMMhtgnR8sfWcT1uy AZoE1c8j0h1kZk2oF1dD8pysG5Tslm9pEhQSaTKub-WrIjPFoIt2JP09He2NkLyPigCyvQjIQvEmL1atyHfc1MjL EdqNdI∼mLphVhzR∼6rJB4tQHqd∼p97RtyOA8MW∼jQSDbFbs7SCHcBFTNBg-rRnQ__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJVGCNMR6FQV6VYIA

55.

Radin

B. A.

(1992). Rural development councils: An intergovernmental coordination experiment. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 22(3), 111–127. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pubjof.a038014

56.

Sagalyn

(2011). Public-private partnerships and urban governance: Coordinates and policy issues | columbia business school research archive. In: Global Urbanization. https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/researcharchive/articles/5505

57.

Schaeffer

P. V.

Loveridge

(2002). Toward an understanding of types of public-private cooperation. Public Performance & Management Review, 26(2), 169–189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1530957602238261

58.

Silvestre

H. C.

de Araújo

J. F. F. E.

(2012). Public-private partnerships/private finance initiatives in Portugal: Theory, practice, and results. Public Performance and Management Review, 36(2), 316–339. https://doi.org/10.2753/PMR1530-9576360208

59.

Sundberg

Carlén

(1989). Allocation mechanisms in public provision of transport and communication infrastructure. The Annals of Regional Science, 23(4), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01579782

60.

Tait

Hansen

C. J.

(2013). Trust and governance in regional planning. The Town Planning Review, 84(3), 283–312.

61.

Teja

Daniel

Pink

G. H.

Brown

Klein

D. J.

(2020). Ensuring adequate capital investment in canadian health care. CMAJ, 192(25), E677–E683. https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.191126

62.

Torres

Briceño-Garmendia

C. M.

Dominguez

(2011). Senegal’s infrastructure: A continental perspective. The World Bank.

63.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

Colquhoun

Kastner

Levac

Sharpe

J. P.

Wilson

Kenny

Warren

Wilson

Stelfox

H. T.

Straus

S. E.

(2016). A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 16(1), Article 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4

64.

Tricco

A. C.

Lillie

Zarin

O’Brien

K. K.

Colquhoun

Levac

Moher

Peters

M. D. J.

Horsley

Weeks

Hempel

Akl

E. A.

Chang

McGowan

Stewart

Hartling

Aldcroft

Wilson

M. G.

Garritty

Straus

S. E.

(2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850

65.

WEF . (2014). Strategic Infrastructure steps to Operate and Maintain Infrastructure efficiently and effectively Prepared in collaboration with the Boston consulting Group Industry Agenda.

66.

Wong

Webb

(2014). Planning for infrastructure: Challenges to Northern england. Town Planning Review, 85(6), 683–708. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2014.42

67.

Yang

R. J.

Jayasuriya

Gunarathna

Arashpour

Xue

Zhang

(2018). The evolution of stakeholder management practices in Australian mega construction projects. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(6), 690–706. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-07-2016-0168

68.

Yang

T. M.

Maxwell

T. A.

(2011). Information-sharing in public organizations: A literature review of interpersonal, intra-organizational and inter-organizational success factors. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 164–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.06.008

69.

Yang

T. M.

Y. J.

(2014). Exploring the determinants of cross-boundary information sharing in the public sector: An e-Government case study in Taiwan. Journal of Information Science, 40(5), 649–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551514538742

70.

Zhang

Yuan

Bouferguene

Al-Hussein

Asce

S. M.

(2020). Improving Information sharing in major construction projects through OC and POC: RDT Perspective.

71.

Zhao

(2016). Collaborative management of complex major construction projects: Any logic-based simulation modelling. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/6195673

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.21 MB

0.01 MB