Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Refined CSF list
| No. | CSFs | Source |
|---|---|---|
| CSF1 | Government support and guarantee | Kanter (2010); Qiao et al. (2001); Stonehouse et al. (1996);Zhang et al. (1998) |
| CSF2 | Reasonable risk allocation | Grant (1996); Qiao et al. (2001) |
| CSF3 | Picking up the good project | Qiao et al. (2001) |
| CSF4 | Thorough and realistic cost-benefit assessment | Brodie (1995); Hambros (1999); Qiao et al. (2001) |
| CSF5 | Stable political situation | Qiao et al. (2001) |
| CSF6 | A favourable legal framework | Boyfield (1992); Stein (1995); Tiong (1996) |
| CSF7 | A strong project consortium | Birnie (1999); Jefferies et al. (2002); Li et al. (2005); Tiong (1996) |
| CSF8 | Stable macroeconomic environment | Qiao et al. (2001); Tiong (1996) |
| CSF9 | Project technical feasibility | Qiao et al. (2001); Tiong (1996); Zantke and Mangels (1999) |
| CSF10 | Transparent and competitive procurement process | Gentry and Fernandez (1997); Jefferies et al. (2002);Li et al. (2005) |
| CSF11 | Sound economic policy | Tiong (1996) |
| CSF12 | A good contractor | Qiao et al. (2001) |
| CSF13 | Multi-benefit objectives | Grant (1996) |
| CSF14 | Good governance | Boyfield (1992); Stein (1995) |
| CSF15 | Social support | Frilet (1997) |
| CSF16 | Well-organised public agency | Li et al. (2005) |
| CSF17 | Shared authority between public and private sectors | Kanter (2010); Stonehouse et al. (1996) |
| CSF18 | Condition of existing infrastructure | Tiong (1996) |
| CSF19 | Technology transfer | Qiao et al. (2001) |
Composition of sample by respondent’s role/area
| Public sector | Private sector | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Role/area | Count | Percentage | Role/Area | Count | Percentage |
| Government of Sichuan Province | 4 | 12.5 | Contractor | 9 | 17.0 |
| Government of Guangdong Province | 5 | 15.6 | Project manager | 11 | 20.8 |
| Development Planning Commission of Hebei Province | 3 | 9.4 | Supplier | 8 | 15.1 |
| Development Planning Commission of Hunan Province | 2 | 6.3 | Financier | 5 | 9.4 |
| Department of Water Resources of Sichuan Province | 6 | 18.8 | Operator | 8 | 15.1 |
| Department of Construction of Guangxi Province | 5 | 15.6 | Adviser | 12 | 22.6 |
| Department of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation of Guangdong Province | 3 | 9.4 | Subtotal | 53 | 100 |
| Shenzhen Municipal Government | 4 | 12.5 | |||
| Subtotal | 32 | 100 | |||
Updated list of CSFs with top ten CSFs
| No. | CSFs and their associations |
|---|---|
| CSF1 | Reasonable risk allocation: risk |
| CSF2 | Government support and guarantee: risk |
| CSF3 | A strong project consortium: management |
| CSF4 | Picking up the good project: whole life |
| CSF5 | Transparent and competitive procurement process: management |
| CSF6 | Project technical feasibility: whole life |
| CSF7 | A good contractor: management |
| CSF8 | Thorough and realistic cost–benefit assessment: whole life |
| CSF9 | Economic factors: risk |
| CSF10 | Political and legal factors: risk |
Composition of sample by sector
| Project type | Count | Percentage |
|---|---|---|
| Power and energy | 26 | 30.6 |
| Water and sanitary | 18 | 21.2 |
| School and education facilities | 22 | 25.9 |
| Transportation | 19 | 22.4 |
| Total | 85 | 100.0 |
New list of CSFs after reliability test
| No. | CSFs and their associations |
|---|---|
| CSF1 | Government support and guarantee: risk |
| CSF2 | Reasonable risk allocation: risk |
| CSF3 | Picking up the good project: whole life |
| CSF4 | Thorough and realistic cost–benefit assessment: whole life |
| CSF5 | Stable political situation: risk |
| CSF6 | A favourable legal framework: risk |
| CSF7 | A strong project consortium: management |
| CSF8 | Stable macroeconomic environment: risk |
| CSF9 | Project technical feasibility: whole life |
| CSF10 | Transparent and competitive procurement process: management |
| CSF11 | Sound economic policy: risk |
| CSF12 | A good contractor: management |
| CSF13 | Multi-benefit objectives: whole life |
| CSF14 | Good governance: management |
| CSF15 | Social support: whole life |
| CSF16 | Well-organised public agency: management |
| CSF17 | Technology transfer: whole life |
Reliability test results
| Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient = 0.971 | ||
|---|---|---|
| No. | Corrected item: total correlation | Cronbach’s alpha if item deleted |
| CSF1 | 0.879 | 0.969 |
| CSF2 | 0.909 | 0.968 |
| CSF3 | 0.898 | 0.968 |
| CSF4 | 0.906 | 0.968 |
| CSF5 | 0.918 | 0.968 |
| CSF6 | 0.925 | 0.967 |
| CSF7 | 0.952 | 0.967 |
| CSF8 | 0.934 | 0.967 |
| CSF9 | 0.927 | 0.967 |
| CSF10 | 0.806 | 0.969 |
| CSF11 | 0.647 | 0.971 |
| CSF12 | 0.912 | 0.967 |
| CSF13 | 0.913 | 0.967 |
| CSF14 | 0.889 | 0.968 |
| CSF15 | 0.859 | 0.968 |
| CSF16 | 0.802 | 0.969 |
| CSF17 | 0.054 | 0.977 |
| CSF18 | 0.419 | 0.973 |
| CSF19 | 0.782 | 0.969 |
Ranking of CSFs by RII
| CSFs | RII | Rank | Risk | Whole life | Management |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonable risk allocation | 0.831 | 1 | x | ||
| Government support and guarantee | 0.806 | 2 | x | ||
| Picking up the good project | 0.769 | 3 | x | ||
| A strong project consortium | 0.700 | 6 | x | ||
| Project technical feasibility | 0.756 | 4 | x | ||
| Transparent and competitive procurement process | 0.731 | 5 | x | ||
| A good contractor | 0.675 | 7 | x | ||
| Thorough and realistic cost–benefit assessment | 0.625 | 9 | x | ||
| Stable political situation | 0.613 | 11 | x | ||
| Stable macro-economic environment | 0.619 | 10 | x | ||
| Sound economic policy | 0.631 | 8 | x | ||
| A favourable legal framework | 0.531 | 13 | x | ||
| Multi-benefit objectives | 0.513 | 14 | x | ||
| Good governance | 0.544 | 12 | x | ||
| Well-organised public agency | 0.513 | 15 | x | ||
| Technology transfer | 0.506 | 16 | x | ||
| Social support | 0.444 | 17 | x |