For interviewees PF11, PT08, PT03 and PF01, a precursor to defining 'VfM' is to highlight the criticality of satisfactorily understanding social welfare problems before attempting to solve them through the use of capital asset investment or by other means (which should be determined before a PSC instrument is designed and applied and before a procurement method chosen). For instance, PF11 states that governments ought to take a more considered approach when determining 'why projects should become projects', including identifying the opportunity cost of what they deliver and, just as importantly, what such partnerships will not solve. PT03 asserts that in some instances, government departments fail to effectively address these issues, including not adequately identifying broader investment and project benefits. The rationale used in project proposals and business cases should thus be properly defensible on these wider grounds with all legitimate options being considered. These views are echoed by PF01:
'The first decision on any piece of infrastructure isn't how to procure it. The first decision is "what's the problem?"...It's all too easy to say that the answer is to build something. It's not so easy to say the answer is not to build something. Sometimes people look to infrastructure and then for a problem to solve whereas it should be that the problem comes first and then an intervention comes second. The intervention may or may not include capital asset investment. It's not until much later down the path that you start talking about how you're going to buy this from the marketplace'.
Allied to these views, and to deliver VfM outcomes, project proposals and business cases should be considered in context of delivering infrastructure assets for their intended purpose as well as the value they will provide to existing networks (PF11; PT08; PF01) e.g. how a PPP-procured asset will connect to electrical, hydraulic, transportation networks, etc (although it is acknowledged that this cannot not always be the case, particularly with social infrastructure projects e.g. schools and hospitals - there may be merit in delivering these types of projects, in isolation to, or in the absence of, existing networks). This type of strategic thinking (including adequately defining the benefits derived from it) is identified as a key area for improvement for the public sector (PF11) as poorly conceived projects could ultimately result in government paying its private partner hundreds of millions (or even billions) of dollars for under-utilised assets and through regular service payments for delivering agreed services that do not fully address intended social needs.