Dr Selorm Adukpo

Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows are commonly used in developing countries (DCs) to ‘measure’ technology transfer, and consequently as an indicator for the technological advancement of economic sectors. An implied assertion being that increased FDI in a sector means an increase in foreign technology and knowledge (T&K) in that sector and in effect, technological advancement in the recipient country. An effect of this assumption is an increase in attempts by DCs to attract more FDI through incentive-laden policy reforms. While these efforts have contributed to increase in FDI, particularly in the construction sectors of DCs in Africa; there is, however, scant evidence suggesting that the rising inflows resulted in technological advancements. Thus, construction industries in many DCs continue to lag behind those of advanced countries. This paper takes as a point of departure the relationship between FDI and technological advancement. It argues that reliance on FDI to estimate ‘how much’ technology has been transferred and as an indicator of attendant advancement has limitations. From a critical perspective, such an assessment is inaccurate and neglects specific nuances of T&K transfer and technological advancement in the construction sector. Examining the Ghanaian construction sector as a case with coeval data, the paper unpacks the blind-spots inherent in the assessment of technological advancements that are heavily reliant on the use of FDI inflows. Insights from the paper contribute to the literature and policy regarding interrelations involving FDIs, the transfer of T&K and technological advancement in the construction sector in DCs.

Globally public sector clients are increasingly being asked to do more for less i.e. produce more public value with fewer resources; at the same time as cost and time overruns on major projects are increasingly highlighted and subjected to public scrutiny. These developments are not lost on the research community and there is now an emerging body of literature that seeks to explore the relationship between how these organisations are structured and resourced and project outcomes. This paper seeks to build on this literature set. It does so through the theoretical lens of organizational capabilities. The particular focus is on project governance and associated governance capabilities. Drawing on an extensive review of the academic literature on project governance from both a supply-side and client perspective, as well as public policy sources, we propose that client project governance capabilities are underpinned by three sets of sub-capabilities: project assurance, project coordination and asset-integration capabilities. We unpack these capability sets with particular attention given to the multiple ways in which they can be deployed. Conclusions are drawn highlighting the importance of a strong owner for the successful realisation of the project and how project governance capabilities are key to achieving this. 

Infrastructure lies at the very heart of social and economic development of a country and the world at large. Yet, despite its importance the delivery outcomes of infrastructure projects have been far from satisfactory. Infrastructure projects face issues of cost and schedule overruns as well as failure to realise expected benefits. Research in the field of project management has emphasized the importance of a 'strong owner' to the success of projects. To act as strong owners, public sector clients that deliver infrastructure projects need to have project capabilities to perform various roles. This paper presents an initial framework on how public sector clients can develop ‘owner project capabilities’, so as to improve infrastructure project delivery outcomes. The theoretical perspective of dynamic capabilities is employed to study how these public sector clients can develop the requisite ‘owner project capabilities’. It is suggested that learning is the mechanism by which owner project capabilities are developed, based on the concept of routines development, and argues for the incorporation of the organizational learning theory within the dynamic capabilities framework. Theoretically the paper contributes to the extension of the current application of organizational capabilities into the public sector infrastructure context. Additionally, it also provides initial insights into the relationship between owner project capabilities and (organizational) learning; and the difficulties faced by public sector clients during the process of capability development.

Around the world, Governments are charged with delivering various services, including infrastructure, to the citizens whose taxes support them. Within the democratic countries of the developed world, the past 30 years have seen significant changes in how the public sector is organized to provide these infrastructure assets. These changes have been driven, in no small way, by wider public sector reform and ideas of New Public Management (NPM). NPM could usefully be understood as the development of an explicitly managerial approach to public administration, which espouses borrowing from private sector practice to improve the delivery of public services. Despite the adoption of NPM practices by the public sector clients with expectations of improved project outcomes, the evidence suggests otherwise. Infrastructure projects are fraught with poor delivery outcomes. Research in project management has emphasized the importance of a 'strong owner' to the success of projects. This paper takes as its point of departure that public sector clients charged with infrastructure acquisition need to be strong owners. The argument is made to the effect that NPM practices make it difficult for public sector clients to act as strong owners. We suggest that in order for these public sector clients to be strong owners they need dynamic capabilities, i.e. the ability to undergo change by making use of internal resources. Theoretically we link the wider debates within the domain of New Public Management with that of public sector clients involved in infrastructure delivery. We also contribute to the limited literature on public sector clients within the project management domain.