Interviewees associate with one of two practical approaches for PPP contract oversight: 'give and take' relationship management and 'letter of the law' contract enforcement.
The 'give and take' approach accords with an organisational culture that places a premium on quality of the contract management function as well as embracing a solutionsbased approach (PT03; PT13) fostered through a strong belief in the value of relationship management (PF07; PF01) - one where partners are likely to be flexible (PT05) and pull together for mutual benefit when things go wrong or when unexpected issues arise (PT13; PT03).
This contrasts with a 'letter of the law' approach which is likely to manifest in a strong compliance-orientated culture. According to PF06, establishing such a culture is acceptable if government is '100 per cent' certain that the contract is correct; however, in practice, this is unlikely to be the case as the interviewee acknowledges that there is often room for wider interpretation in contractual clauses.
Despite the goodwill that can be generated by PPP partners and the co-operative intentions they may have, it is also argued that 'you get what you pay for', i.e. that money drives behaviour (RK01). This suggests that organisational culture may not always be driven primarily by the preferred contract management style of the public partner, but could be influenced by the size of the private partner's financial margins, which in turn could then influence the extent to which consortia may 'go the extra mile' (or perhaps alternatively, the degree to which 'corners could be cut' by the private partner). The wider point is elucidated by PF13:
'If you've got a deal where the private [partner] is basically making dollars but is still delivering VfM, then there's probably a greater willingness to do things together. But if the assumptions that the private [partner] has made around the cost of delivering the services and the services are actually under pressure and it becomes a bit of a loss, then their motivation to work in flexible ways is going to diminish.'
These types of difficulties could also be exacerbated, for instance, by budgetary pressures and changing departmental priorities that can impact on the quality of the public partner's contract management function, e.g. where cost-cutting may lead to the replacement of highly qualified staff by less skilled and less experienced employees. As a consequence, the dynamics of the relationship between the parties may change. Strategic relationships may even become a routine administrative process (PF07; PT03).