‘Dialogic Evaluation’ of Public Private Partnerships
Submitting Institution
King's College LondonUnit of Assessment
Business and Management StudiesSummary Impact Type
EconomicResearch Subject Area(s)
Commerce, Management, Tourism and Services: Accounting, Auditing and Accountability, Business and Management
Studies In Human Society: Policy and Administration
Summary of the impact
King's was vital to the innovative development of a research based model,
termed `dialogic evaluation', which reshaped the practice of Performance
Audits on Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) undertaken by national audit
offices in the UK, and particularly, in Australia. `Dialogic evaluation'
introduced a theoretical model for evaluating the value-for-money of the
post-decision operational stage of Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in
Performance Audits. Building on research and impact with the UK National
Audit Office — the British agency — mandated with evaluating public
spending — research on Australian PPPs in collaboration with partners at
the University of Sydney and the Victorian Auditor-General's Office (VAGO)
in Australia itself reshaped VAGO's practice. Whilst PPPs are used in many
countries, the UK and Australia are world leaders in these arrangements.
In the UK alone, by 2007, more than 870 projects worth £65.5bn had been
procured as PPPs. Yet, the national audit offices in both these countries
faced considerable challenges in their attempts to judge value-for-money
of PPPs over their lengthy (25+ years) contract period. The theoretical
evaluation model provided a way to resolve these problems and was adopted
by VAGO, the national agency for the evaluation of public (government)
spending in Australia.
Underpinning research
The `dialogic evaluation' model for judging value-for-money was developed
in research by Professors Richard Laughlin (King's College London) and
Jane Broadbent (Royal Holloway). The key characteristic of this evaluation
model involves a process called `dialogic evaluation' whereby
value-for-money is not seen as an objective, scientific pre-given but
comes out of a critical, structured dialogue over time between key experts
and stakeholders. (Refs 1 and 2). This model was extended in a research
project from 1999 to 2002 with a specific emphasis on the evaluation of
health PPPs, funded by the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants.
(Refs. 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8). This model was further developed when Professors
Laughlin and Broadbent in collaboration with Professor James Guthrie and
Associate Professor Linda English (both of the University of Sydney)
secured a major Australian Research Council Linkage Grant (2006-2008) to
undertake a research project entitled `Developing a Model for the
Evaluation of Australian Public Private Partnerships'. (Refs. 6 and 9). A
major partner in this linkage grant was VAGO.
Performance Audits involve national audit offices making judgements on
the value-for-money of public expenditure and have been particularly
complex in the case of PPPs, which are also referred to as Private Finance
Initiative (PFI) projects in the UK. One of the unique characteristics of
PPPs involves extensive contract negotiations at the pre-decision stage
between procurers and suppliers about service provision and risk
identification. There is considerable government guidance on how to
construct these long term contracts providing national audit offices with
a framework to be able to undertake Performance Audits of the pre-decision
and decision stages of any PPPs. Yet there has been virtually no
guidance on how to undertake Performance Audits of the much longer post-decision
operational stage of PPPs. This has caused considerable problems for
national audit offices, particularly those dealing with many PPPs. The
theoretical model provided a way of thinking as well as a design for
Performance Audits to fill this gap conceptually and practically.
References to the research
Where a DOI or URL is not supplied, hard copies are available upon
request.
1. Laughlin, R. and Broadbent, J. (1996) `Redesigning Fourth Generation
Evaluation: An Evaluation Model for Public Sector Reforms in the UK?', Evaluation,
2(4): 431-451 Doi: 10.1177/135638909600200406
2. Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (1997) `Evaluating the `New Public
Management' Reforms in the UK: A Constitutional Possibility?', Public
Administration, 75(3): 487-507
3. Broadbent, J., Gill, J. and Laughlin, R. (2003) `Evaluating the
Private Finance Initiative in the National Health Service in the UK', Accounting,
Auditing and Accountability Journal, 16(3): 422-445 doi: 10.1108/09513570310482309
4. Broadbent, J., Gill, J. and Laughlin, R. (2003a) `The Development of
Contracting in the Context of Infrastructure Investment in the UK: The
Case of the PFI in the National Health Service', International Public
Management Journal, 6(2): 173-197. Doi:
10.1016/S0723-1318(04)13003-X
5. Broadbent, J., Gill, J. and Laughlin, R. (2008) `Identifying and
Controlling Risk: The Problem of Uncertainty in the Private Finance
Initiative in the UK's National Health Service', Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, 19(1): 40-78. Doi: 10.1016/j.cpa.2006.04.006
6. English, L.M., Guthrie, J., Broadbent, J. and Laughlin, R. (2010)
`Performance Audit of the Operational Stage of Long-Term Partnerships for
the Private Sector Provision of Public Services', Australian
Accounting Review, 20(1): 64-75. Doi:
10.1111/j.1835-2561.2010.00075.x
Grants Received:
7. Professor Jane Broadbent (Royal Holloway (Grant Holder)) and Professor
Richard Laughlin (King's College London), `An Exploration and Evaluation
of the Private Finance Initiative with Particular Reference to the
National Health Service (Part 1)',Chartered Institute of Management
Accountants (CIMA), 1/4/1999 to 1/9/2000, £12,185 (direct costs)
8. Professor Jane Broadbent (Royal Holloway and then the University of
Roehampton, London (Grant Holder)) and Professor Richard Laughlin (King's
College London), `An Exploration and Evaluation of the Private Finance
Initiative with Particular Reference to the National Health Service (Part
2)', Chartered Institute of Management Accountants (CIMA),
1/4/2001 to 31/12/2002, £40,339 (direct costs)
9. Professor James Guthrie (University of Sydney (Grant Holder))
Associate Professor Linda English (University of Sydney), Professor Jane
Broadbent (Royal Holloway and then the University of Roehampton, London)
and Professor Richard Laughlin (King's College London), `Developing a
Model for the Evaluation of Australian Public Private Partnerships', Australian
Research Council (ARC) Linkage Grant, 1/1/2006 to 31/12/2008,
Aus$1,125,188 (full economic cost) (£774,877 at £1= A$1.45)
Details of the impact
The `dialogic evaluation' theoretical model had a direct impact on VAGO's
performance audits. As noted in Box/Section 2, the direct research that
underpinned this impact was developed and conducted in collaboration with
VAGO and the University of Sydney. Laughlin and Broadbent's earlier
research and impact on the National Audit Office (NAO) in the UK was
influential, enabling the Auditor-General of Victoria (Des Pearson) and
VAGO to work with the Australian Research Council (ARC) funded research
team between 2006 and 2008. That earlier research, which introduced the
theory of `dialogic evaluation', reshaped the thinking and practice of the
UK's Auditor-General and the UK National Audit Office.
Laughlin and Broadbent's research indicates that the adoption of
`dialogic evaluation' provides the framework for necessary changes
involved in moving away from a more reactive `watchdog' emphasis in
value-for-money audits and audit thinking. Evidence that this change in
thinking was linked to the work of Laughlin and Broadbent is confirmed in
Public Sector Auditing by Sir John Bourn, written as he was
preparing to retire as Comptroller and Auditor General of the UK (Source
B: 73):
`I use the terms effectiveness audit and evaluation interchangeably as in
essence they are broadly the same, particularly with what has come to be
known as `dialogic evaluation'. Indeed, Richard Laughlin, Jane Broadbent
and Jas Gill in their research on evaluating Private Finance Initiative
deals highlight the close similarities in approaches adopted by evaluators
and value for money auditors.'
Performance Audits to judge value-for-money of PFI projects in the UK had
been a constant problem for the NAO (Source C). It was recognised that
judging the effectiveness of the operational stage of PFI projects was
particularly problematic and that a new audit framework to fill this gap
was needed. Laughlin and Broadbent were invited to present their
CIMA-funded research, along with others to the NAO. The NAO embraced
`dialogic evaluation' as a methodology and replaced the 1999
value-for-money audit practice guide with the NAO's highly influential
2006 Performance Audit guidelines (Source D). These guidelines, informed
by `dialogic evaluation', provided the foundation for the research funded
by the Australian Research Council and the work with VAGO, which led, as
with the UK precedent, to the development of new thinking and practice
founded on `dialogic evaluation.' The three-year long Australian Research
Council project was presented and extensively discussed in December 2008
at a two day meeting with the Auditor-General and VAGO senior staff. The
`dialogic evaluation' theoretical model and the research in the Australian
context for the Performance Audit of the operational stage of PPPs were
adopted by VAGO.
A letter dated 25 March 2009 from the Auditor-General to each of the
researchers, confirmed that the research `will assist our future
endeavours in this important area.' (Source F). On 28th
September 2010, the Auditor-General of VAGO commended the 2010 publication
and confirmed impact and operationalisation of the model by linking the
research and this publication to a recently completed Performance Audit of
the operational stage of a PPP for the provision of prison accommodation
services:
`On 15 September 2010, I tabled before Parliament a performance audit
report on "Management of Prison Accommodation Services Using PPPs". This
audit focussed on the operational stage of four prisons across Victoria
and found that an ongoing challenge for the public sector is the delivery
of anticipated value-for-money proposition over the life of these
long-term contracts.
In contrast to the more positive findings in regard to the early stages
of PPPs in Victoria, we observed a number of weaknesses in the monitoring
and management of contractor performance during the operational stage of
the reviewed PPPs. The Department of Justice acknowledged that as a result
of this audit, it has initiated changes to its contract management and
administration of prison PPPs. The Department of Treasury and Finance is
re-examining the extent to which it provides guidance and support to
agencies managing PPPs; to date its focus had been on the procurement
phase of these contracts.' (Sources F and E).
This impact was clarified further and developed with indications of
future influence in May 2013 by Jacquie Stepanoff, Manager — Policy and
Co-ordination, VAGO:
`....your work went beyond the scope of that Prisons audit, and has
stimulated us to think differently about what is and what is not feasible
in these evaluations.
Paul O'Connor, Director, Policy-Co-ordination comments that whilst your
research encouraged him to consider more carefully the concept of whole of
life VFM during the planning for the Prisons audit, in many cases, the
actual phase of the project defines just how far an audit can
realistically go in forming that judgement, as it's impossible to conclude
on VFM after only 5 years of a 30 year contract.
So, although its application was limited in the prisons audit, your
research stimulated Paul to nominate for our forward program a review of a
"mature operational" infrastructure PPP instead of the typical
post-transaction review we had done in the other cases. This topic is
still under consideration but looks likely to be added in later years.
This is a direct reflection of the way your work stimulated VAGO's
interest in whole of life cycle VFM.' (Source G).
The impact of `dialogic evaluation' on the thinking of all those involved
in the operational stage of PPPs, not just in Victoria, is captured in a
paper written by the Former Auditor-General of Australia (Source A).
Commenting on Reference 6 he pointed out:
`The evaluation and audit of PPPs have received little attention in the
literature in recent years, particularly in any analytical way...... The
article is a very worthwhile contribution in drawing attention to the
issues associated with assessing the longer-term efficiency and
effectiveness of PPPs particularly in a changing environment. It should
encourage more thoughtful analysis and development by all those involved,
not least from audit offices. In particular, there is a need to focus on
assessments of Value for Money (VFM) over long periods of time as results
are actually achieved.' (Source A: 99).
In this regard Des Pearson, Auditor-General of VAGO, had indicated in his
letter of 25 March 2009 that he was going to refer the research to the
Auditors-General in other States in Australia: `Due to the recent
endorsement of the National Public Private Partnership Policy and
Guidelines by the Council of Australian Governments, I intend to refer the
research outputs to the Australasian Council of Auditors General (ACAG)
for further comment and action.' (Source F). Jacquie Stepanoff, Manager —
Policy and Co-ordination, VAGO, in her email of 12 May 2013, made clear
this did occur and implies that the research and VAGO's performance audit
experience will be influential when evaluating PPPs over the operational
stage of these long term contracts becomes more of a pressing problem in
other States in Australia. (Source G).
Taken together the `dialogic evaluation' theoretical model has had
comprehensive impact on and reshaped VAGO's audit/evaluation of the
value-for-money of the operational stages of PPPs.
Sources to corroborate the impact
All documents are available on reqest.
A. Barrett, P. (2011) `Commentary: Performance Audit of PPPs —
Getting the Basics Right', Australian Accounting Review, 21(1):
99-106
B. Bourn, J. (2007) Public Sector Auditing, London: Wiley
C. Examining the Value for Money of Deals under the Private
Finance Initiative, HC739 Session 1998-99
D. National Audit Office (NAO) (2006 and 2006a) A Framework
for Evaluating the Implementation of Private Finance Initiative
Projects: Volumes 1 and 2, London: HMSO
E. VAGO (2010) Management of Prison Accommodation Services
Using PPPs http://www.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_and_publications/reports_by_year/2010-
11/20101509_prisons.aspx
F. Letters from the Auditor-General, VAGO, Level 24, 35 Collins
Street, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia 3000 dated 25 March 2009 and 28
September 2010 [confirms impact on VAGO's prisons PPP audit]
G. Email from the Manager — Policy and Co-ordination, VAGO, dated
12 May 2013 [confirms work on project `Developing a model for the
Evaluation of Australian PPPs']