The more government specifies how the solution must work, the less room suppliers have to innovate. The less government specifies, the more carefully it must define the outcome.
The 2015 National PPP Policy promotes an output-oriented approach. It argues that projects should focus on the services to be delivered rather than prescribing exactly how those services must be delivered, with performance measures used to confirm that requirements are met.
This is one of the central design ideas behind PPP procurement.
It also creates a strategic trade-off.
Output freedom can unlock innovation.
Poorly defined outputs can unlock ambiguity.
The Strategic Context
Traditional asset procurement often specifies inputs.
The owner may define:
- materials;
- dimensions;
- systems;
- equipment;
- processes;
- construction methodology.
That can provide control.
But it can also constrain suppliers from proposing more efficient lifecycle solutions.
PPP structures often integrate design, construction, maintenance and sometimes operations.
Because one private party may remain responsible for performance over many years, it can have stronger incentives to optimise the whole system.
Output specifications attempt to create room for that optimisation.
Instead of prescribing the solution, government defines the required service.
What Leaders Commonly Misread
The first mistake is assuming output specifications require less owner expertise.
They often require more.
The owner must understand the service well enough to define what good performance means without over-prescribing the method.
The second is confusing broad outcomes with measurable outputs.
“Provide a high-quality facility” is not an effective performance specification.
The third is assuming KPIs can correct a weak output definition later.
Poorly designed measures can reward compliance while missing user outcomes.
The fourth is failing to anticipate technology and service change.
An output that looks precise at contract signing may become obsolete over a multi-decade term.
Reframing the Issue
Output specification is an allocation of design freedom.
The buyer deliberately gives the private party discretion over how to meet the requirement.
In return, the buyer needs stronger clarity about:
- required outcomes;
- minimum performance;
- measurement;
- availability;
- service quality;
- interface with public services;
- change mechanisms;
- consequences of underperformance.
The contract therefore moves control from inputs towards outcomes.
That is not less governance.
It is different governance.
Strategic Analysis
The Policy links output orientation with innovation and performance-based contracting.
This can create important whole-of-life incentives.
A consortium responsible for both construction and maintenance may select a more durable component even if it costs more initially because it reduces future maintenance exposure.
That is exactly the kind of lifecycle trade-off PPP is intended to encourage.
But output flexibility has limits.
Government may still need mandatory requirements for:
- safety;
- public access;
- regulatory compliance;
- security;
- interoperability;
- environmental performance;
- clinical or operational interfaces.
The art is deciding which constraints are essential and which merely reflect historical preferences.
Performance Measures and Behaviour
Measures shape behaviour.
If the payment regime rewards availability only, the private party may optimise for availability while user experience deteriorates.
If performance indicators are too numerous, the contract becomes administratively heavy.
If they are too weak, accountability becomes unclear.
A good output regime therefore links measures to material public-service outcomes.
It should also distinguish:
- minimum conditions;
- performance incentives;
- service failures;
- systemic underperformance.
Current Australian PPP output-specification and abatement practices require verification before being stated as current policy. [FACT CHECK REQUIRED]
Decision Framework
Before releasing an output specification, test five questions.
Outcome clarity
Can the required service be understood without prescribing the technical solution?
Measurability
Can performance be observed consistently?
Materiality
Do the measures reflect what users and government actually value?
Innovation space
Have unnecessary design constraints been removed?
Adaptability
Can outputs evolve when technology or service needs change?
Where these conditions are weak, more prescriptive requirements may be justified.
From Strategy to Execution
Immediate action: separate mandatory constraints from performance outcomes in the project brief.
Medium-term capability building: involve operations, users, technical experts and contract managers in output-specification design.
Long-term strategic positioning: review whether KPIs continue to reflect public value as service models evolve.
A long-term output regime should be treated as a living performance architecture rather than a static schedule.
Signals to Monitor
Watch for specifications that are nominally output-based but still prescribe most design choices, KPIs that measure activity rather than outcome, frequent disputes over interpretation, innovation proposals rejected because they differ from owner preference or performance regimes that remain unchanged despite major technology shifts.
Questions for the Leadership Team
- Which requirements are genuinely non-negotiable?
- Where should suppliers have design freedom?
- Can the required service be measured objectively?
- Which KPIs represent public value rather than administrative convenience?
- What happens when technology changes the best way to achieve the output?
- Are we rewarding innovation or merely permitting it?
- Could a supplier meet every KPI while users still receive a poor service?
Closing Perspective
Output specifications create value when they preserve accountability while allowing suppliers to optimise the solution.
The strategic trade is simple:
Government gives up some control over how.
It must become much clearer about what, how well and for whom.
Related article: When Does a PPP Actually Fit? The Executive Suitability Test
Related article: A Long-Term PPP Contract Is an Operating System
About EraNorth Insights
EraNorth Insights publishes practical analysis on strategy, projects, operations, transformation and decision intelligence for professional and organisational use. About EraNorth.