Defining PPPs

Definition

The term Public-Private Partnership (PPP) is frequently used loosely to refer to any type of partnering arrangement between public and private entities where the parties agree to cooperate to advance their mutual interests. Based on foundational literature by Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff [1] and US Department of State [2], as well as MITRE’s experience with information-centric PPPs other collaboratives, we propose that:

Information- and innovation-centric PPPs are working arrangements based on a mutual commitment (over and above that implied in any contract) between a public sector organization and any other organization(s) outside the public sector to achieve some mutually beneficial outcome. PPPs are collaboratives in which the goals, structure, governance, roles and responsibilities are mutually determined and decision-making is shared. PPPs are distinct from traditional contractual arrangements and are rooted in co-creation, co-design, and co-resource mobilization.

Characteristics

Note that P3TK focuses on information- and innovation-centric PPPs (not infrastructure PPPs). In short, these types of PPPs are a cross-sectoral collaboration with the following 10 characteristics:

• Shared mission with commitment to action by partner organizations
• Mutual benefit to partners and to the public interest, so all partners are incentivized to collaborate
• Partners bring commitment and competence beyond a contractual relationship
• Participation is voluntary
• Trust-driven interactions among partners, through a co-created operational model: structure, governance, roles, (typically formalized in a set of legal agreements)
• Shared decision-making, often consensus-based, such that public and private partners have an equal voice in key decisions
• Shared resourcing with equitable contributions (e.g., partners make in-kind contributions of time and talent, share data, and/or contribute financially to sustain the partnership)
• Clear value and tangible outputs or work products are generated as a result of the collaboration
• Transparent communications about decisions and operations as a part of comprehensive planning and execution that serve partners’ interests in the PPP
• Requires a backbone organization (neutral Trusted Third Party) that provides ongoing support

PPPs are unique from other structures (Advisory Committees, Networks). PPPs also represent the highest level of partnering – collaboration – which is distinct from cooperation and coordination. Examples of cooperation and coordination include Communities of Interest, Communities of Practice, and Centers of Excellence.

Types of PPPs

1. Information-centric PPPs

This type of PPP exists where the relationships are complex, the problem space is complex, and there are many stakeholders. These PPPs are also defined by constantly learning, innovating, and evolving to address emergent challenges. Contracts tend to be smaller, either federally-funded or at times industry partner-funded, and generally running from year to year.

• Information sharing PPPs come about when: the problem is wicked and collaboration the only way to address the threat/opportunity; information is often shared for partner action sometimes through a trusted third party; the PPP is constantly adapting to meet partner needs and emergent conditions; contracts may be smaller and at times there are no contracts (e.g., COVID-19 Health Care Coalition); coordinated near real-time action is a characteristic, and many entities may be involved.
  • Outcomes: New and unique mission impact not otherwise possible, such as ensuring delivery of quality medical devices for patient care, improving safety of increasingly autonomous vehicles, and fighting threats and fraud.
  • Examples: Medical Device Information Analysis and Sharing (MDIAS), Partnership for Analytics Research in Traffic Safety (PARTS), Identity Theft Tax Refund Fraud Information Sharing and Analysis Center (IDTTRF-ISAC)

2. Innovation-centric PPPs

This type of PPP is focused on applied research or motivating markets and competitiveness (incubators, test labs and consortia to cross the technology innovation valley of death). In these PPPs, contracts are generally managed by federal agencies, are long term, and they are often large combinations of multiple unique contracts (IDIQ). The contracts may take the form of Government Owned Contractor Operated (GOCO), or Contractor Owned Contractor Operated (COCO).

• Innovation-centric PPPs come about in circumstances where the problem space requires significant investment, risk is high, and success may be elusive. Contracts are generally long-term, and many entities may be involved.
  • Outcomes: Creating innovative products (or markets) and intellectual property. Addressing global technology gaps such as supercomputing, nuclear and nano sciences, and telecommunications/broadband.
  • Examples: National Labs, Semantech, National Nano Tech Initiative, Next G Alliance.

3. Infrastructure-centric PPPs

This is the most common type of PPP, and the traditional use of the term. These PPPs focus on finding a way for governments to finance or distribute the risk of building public infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and major public works projects. Often these partnerships use model agreements such as Build Own Transfer (BOT), Build Own Operate (BOO), Build Own Operate Transfer (BOOT).

• Infrastructure PPPs are frequently defined by complex relationships, enormous (multimillion dollar) contracts, and many entities being involved in the project or program. These entities can include national governments (at times multiple), local governments, and a prime or multiple vendors addressing challenges, costs, and risks through contracting vehicles that are generally long term.
  • Outcomes: Bridges, roads, schools, transportation, electricity, drinking water, urban renewal.
  • Examples: India’s use of a PPP to modernize its airports and the Hyderabad Metro Rail project (perhaps the largest PPP project to date), the High Line in NY.

Downloads

• Cooperation, Coordination, and Collaboration (3Cs)
• Channeling Change Making Collective Impact Work: Stanford Social Innovation Review