One senior service provider stated, "I would like to challenge the ethos of KPIs". The view being that there should be a discussion between the State and the PPP tenderers, a challenge on how best to contract (and cost) for service outcomes rather than prescriptive KPIs that seem to grow in number from contract to contract.
A few contract managers expressed the same concern with the large number of contracted KPIs they need to manage, in one case there being nearly 100. Similarly, some service providers expressed concern with the time and energy it takes their on-site FM operator to deal with FM issues because of the contract details. With such details, the 'process', can be used as an excuse for either delay or take no action on matters of urgency to the service provider.
A theme emerging from service provider workshops was that a balance between prescriptive versus open requirements for the mutual benefit of the two parties was elusive. That there was a mindset on outputs rather than the outcomes sought by the service providers to service their client community.
The service providers in workshops made a strong favourable impression with their focus and passion for addressing the interests of their client community. And these committed individuals often felt frustrated, not with the 'big picture' of their PPP project, but with the small details. The question of whether such dis-satisfaction by service providers should be addressed by additional KPIs details or by a greater reliance on outcome statements (with fewer details) is an interesting one. One position, to paraphrase one principal, "I don't know the contract and I don't really care about it, we just expect the services we require to serve our students".
Service providers generally expressed frustration27 with the 'red tape' of needing to log small jobs that are often repetitive. For example, the rearrangement of furniture in a space before a new activity or an unexpected and urgent cleaning job. Some service providers report that the lack of agility and timeliness by the on-site FM operator responding to such jobs results in the service providers doing the work themselves (sometimes contrary to standing rules). Small delays can be significant as they result in disruptions to the workflow servicing the client community. Some service providers also reported that over time a "partnership" relationship develops with the on-site FM operator where informal or verbal job requests are accepted, making life much easier.
One contract manager provided the opinion that their project was highly successful because the FM operator approached their role as being in an "operational partnership" rather than in a "commercial transaction". This contract manager believed that their PPP project worked well primarily because of the strong FM operations and less so the design and quality of the facility. It also emerged that school principals had diversity of pedagogical philosophy and a strong interest on the look and feel of their facility (and the furniture and equipment) as an influencer of student and parental attitudes towards the educational experience. Both of these examples suggest the importance of, inter alia, an "operational partnership" based on agreed outcomes rather than a "commercial transaction", an approach not consistent with evermore detailed KPIs.
Arguably, it is difficult for a PPP contract for social infrastructure with many prescriptive KPIs, and a concession period of 25 to 30 years, to address all the complexity, nuance and variant requirements of service providers. While particularly the financiers of the PPP project, might appreciate the certainty detailed KPIs offers them, perhaps governments and tenderers should explore the feasibility of making a greater use of statements of outcomes in future PPP projects and reduce the number of highly detailed KPIs. Given the number, maturity and successful history of PPPs in social infrastructure, such a formulation of outcome statements would not be wholly a leap into the unknown.