Supporting the chosen definition of PPP involving collaborative effort between the public and private partners selected for this research, Weihe (in Hodge, Greve and Boardman 2010: p.520) asserts that, in order to achieve VfM outcomes, co-operative relationships between the partners must be established. Put another way, un-cooperative working environments (Klijn and Teisman 2003) can lead to operational difficulties between partners. Therefore, partnerships should be based on establishing the "right" working culture (National Audit Office 2009b: p.55; Edwards, Bowen and Stewart 2005) that is beneficial to both partners and then maintaining good relations (AECOM 2007: p.75; Partnerships Victoria 2003a: p.16) over the life of the contract to deliver agreed outcomes. A study conducted by Cambridge Economic Policy Associates (2005: p.34) that focused on the evaluation and performance of PPP in Scotland, for instance, found that individual personalities can influence culture and can determine the extent to which successful partnerships are developed, stating that positive relationships produce profitable outcomes (although no practical examples were provided).
There are other factors besides personalities that may impact upon the effectiveness of organisational culture including team building (and by extension, team working) and employee motivation (Jones and Noble 2008). A crucial aspect of team building for managers and task leaders is to sometimes cross organisational boundaries to deal with staff over whom they may have little or no formal authority to get a job done (Thamhain in Cleland and King 1988: p.823). This can lead to internal tensions within teams due to the blurring of lines between autonomy and accountability (Trafford and Proctor 2006; Forrer et al 2010) and can therefore be unproductive with regard to collective achievement which may impact to some degree on the achievement of intended outcomes.
Performance-based incentives (or lack of them) and governance arrangements can affect employee motivation. PPP contracts should closely align incentives to performance (to alter behaviour to make it more productive) and governance frameworks should be properly socialised to improve the chances of effectively managing partnerships (National Audit Office 2009b: p.55). These characteristics are an imperative as the National Audit Office in the UK claims that poor relationships and unsatisfactory performance go "hand in hand" (2009b: p.54). This suggests for instance, that poorly motivated staff are less likely to strive to meet tightly scheduled milestones or KPIs and may result in penalties or abatement being applied to service providers for failing to meet performance targets. With that said, the findings of a survey undertaken by Ernst & Young (2008: p.13) highlight that developing good working relationships between partners can decrease levels of corrective action that may otherwise be taken to improve contract management outcomes e.g. abatement.
Furthermore, the Ernst & Young study points potentially to a significant advantage in creating cohesive relations between the partners: building such relations may improve long-term prospects of partnership outcomes thus avoiding, where possible, "restrictive" and "mechanical" administrative practices that may rely too heavily on specific wording of contracts (2008: p.13) rather than trying to achieve better mutually agreed outcomes by engaging their opposite partner more effectively. This is important because the "end goal" for PPPs is not cost reduction (i.e. simply abating for under-performance) - it is ensuring the private partner performs to the agreed standards under the contract (HM Treasury 2011: p.15) and that VfM is being delivered as expected. It is vital to note, however, that all government employees, including those who work in projects are obligated, when engaged in commercial transactions, to adhere to public sector codes of conduct and applicable standards i.e. finance legislation as well as being accountable to Parliament and subject to examination of Auditors-General for their decision-making (E W Russell & Associates 2000: p.80-81).