Ublic Private Partnerships (PPPs) have emerged as one of the major approaches for delivering infrastructure projects in recent years. If properly formulated and managed, a PPP can provide a number of benefits to the public sector such as: alleviating the financial bur- den on the public sector due to rising infrastructure development costs; allowing risks to be transferred from the public to the private sector; and increasing the "value for money" spent for infrastructure services by providing more efficient, lower cost, and reliable services.1 However, the experience of the public sector with PPPs has not always been positive. Many PPP projects are either held up or terminated due to: wide gaps between public and private sector expectations; lack of clear government objectives and commitment; complex decision making; poorly defined sector policies; inadequate legal/regulatory frameworks; poor risk management; low credibility of government policies; inadequate domestic capital markets; lack of mechanisms to attract long-term finance from private sources at affordable rates; poor transparency; and lack of competition.2 Despite numerous negative experiences,3 many governments (e.g., the UK and Australia) continue to view PPPs as one of the key strategies for deliver- ing public services and infrastructure. Therefore, understanding and enhancing knowledge of PPPs continue to be a matter of significance and importance. Dur- ing the past decades, researchers have conducted studies that cover a wide range of topics, such as how to select an appropriate concessionaire, what are the criti- cal factors for the success or failure of PPP projects, what roles the government should play in PPP projects, and more. This article collects, codifies, and consolidates these previous research findings to facilitate a comprehensive understanding of PPPs. It discusses the definitions, types, examples of worldwide applications, benefits, and obstacles of

The principal goal of this study was to determine the financial and organizational impacts of project management. This study began with the development of a project management maturity model and an analysis methodology to assess the maturity of project management processes. The project management maturity analysis methodology consists of 148 multiple-choice questions that measure project management maturity, and cover 8 knowledge areas and 6 project phases. The maturity model and methodology were then applied by benchmarking 38 different companies and government agencies in 4 different industries. This assessment methodology provides solid and comparative studies on project management practices across industries and companies within an industry. It also provides a set of tools for organizations to use in identifying key areas of opportunity for improvement in project management.

Design/build has become one of the favored project delivery methods in the engineering construction industry. Numerous studies have advocated the use of design/build over the traditional design/bid/build delivery approach. A comprehensive analysis of 67 global projects from the Construction Industry Institute's database shows that design/build projects may not provide all the benefits to project performance. The study found timesaving was a definitive advantage of design/build project delivery, but, the positive effects of cost and productivity changes were not convincing. Based on the results of the study, the project management expertise and experience of the contractor may have a greater impact on project performance outcomes than focusing on project delivery strategy only.