In order to address the main research question set out in Chapter 3 of this study, and to compare PPP projects to Traditional projects, we identified a number of key milestones. Any comparisons between these two fundamentally different procurement approaches are undeniably problematic:
• One of the difficulties of looking at projects in Australia's property and construction sector is that no two projects are alike.
• Moreover, procurement processes obviously differ both within and between projects and between different jurisdictions.
• In the case of PPPs, a 'whole of life' (or significant part of it) solution is difficult to compare with a traditional 'design and construct' project that relies on a separate operations and maintenance framework.
From these perspectives it is relatively simple to question any study such as this by arguing that methodological and comparative parity has not been achieved because of the obvious differences between projects. This could be done by pointing to the obvious difference between the two procurement models or by pointing out the unique, and hence non-comparative, characteristics between different projects themselves. In developing our methodology we were certainly aware of these issues but nevertheless felt that these potential criticisms are, given the nature of the market we were dealing with, unrealistic.
Another methodological strategy that we pursued was to source all of our data from the public domain. This had the advantage of avoiding the criticism that the data had been modified because it originated from a source with an interest in either of the procurement methods under question. There were three main sources of data:
• Parliamentary estimates committees and other budget papers;
• State Auditor General reports; and,
• Press releases and other material available on government departmental websites.
If any biases remain, they would have arisen from these public sources, and we have not had access to alternative sources that would call into question any of the data that we have used.