APPENDIX C: ETHICS PROCESS, DATA AND APPROVAL C.1 Ethic process and approval This project followed the detailed ethics approval process of The University of Melbourne. Ethics approval was received on 10 May 2019 (ID 1954426). A copy of the following documentation follows: • the ethics approval • the plain language statement issued to all participants • the pre-workshop questionnaire • the workshop questions for service providers • the workshop questions for contract managers, and • the post-workshop questionnaire.
C.2 Selected projects and data sources The projects nominated by the jurisdictions are detailed in Table C.1. Table C.1: Projects included in the research 40
Jurisdiction
Project
Category
Queensland
The Southbank Education and Training Precinct
Education
Queensland
SEQ Schools Project
Education
New South Wales
New Schools Project
Education
New South Wales
New Schools Project 2
Education
New South Wales
Long Bay Prison and Forensic Project
Health
New South Wales
Darling Harbour Live
Other
Victoria
Partnerships Victoria in Schools Project
Education
Victoria
Royal Women's Hospital
Health
Victoria
Casey Community Hospital
Health
Victoria
Melbourne Convention Centre Development
Other
New Zealand
Hobsonville Schools PPP
Education
New Zealand
Auckland South Correctional Facility
Justice
Throughout the research, it was anticipated that participants (service providers and contract managers) with experience in other projects (normally in the traditional model) would also bring examples and comments from additional projects as appropriate.
38
The four jurisdictions also agreed to: • make available to the research team media releases and other community information documents and files pertaining to the nominated project • make available to the research team files on » Cabinet-approved business case targets on project costs and service outcomes » Gateway Review reports » Formal project reports on outcomes during contract management related to contracted KPIs and financial matters such as on-going contractual payments and abatements » Formal reports to project control committees of business case versus actual costs (capital and recurrent) and time outcomes, and • nominate “appropriate” project service providers and contract managers for participation in workshops conducted by the research team. The definition of an “appropriate” representative person was one that: • has worked for at least a few years in one of the nominated PPP projects • can provide their view as a senior executive (for example, school principals/deputy principals), middle manager (for example, senior staff), staff (for example, professional staff outside of management) and/or administrative officer (for example, business manager), and • has experience working in both PPP and non-PPP facilities. The service providers and contract managers nominated by the jurisdictions were invited by the university’s researcher to participate in the following activities: • complete an individual pre-workshop survey • attend a workshop for either contract managers or service providers (two separate workshops were conducted in each of the four jurisdictions) • complete an individual post-workshop survey, and • complete an additional individual survey if unable to attend a workshop. A total of 39 participants attended the workshops which included 28 service providers (principals, clinicians, event managers, custodial staff, business managers and others) and 11 contract managers. A total of 37 responses were collected for pre-workshop survey and 21 responses for post-workshop survey.
UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE