British Columbia's Capital Asset Management Framework: Moving from transactional to transformative leadership on public‐private partnerships, or a “railroad job”?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The Liberal government of British Columbia has had more success in terms of the number of public‐private partnerships they have managed to initiate than any other provincial government in Canada. Observers (whether they believe that this outcome is positive or negative) agree that part of this success is attributable to the Capital Asset Management Framework. Introduced in the spring of 2002, this is a province‐wide set of guidelines that all ministries, agencies and other public organizations seeking a provincial capital contribution must follow. Adherents of the New Public Management (such as the Liberal government) frequently state that public managers ought to be empowered to produce results, and judged by these results, not tied to rigid procedures. With this in mind, this article examines the Capital Asset Management Framework guidelines. The article also explores how the introduction of the Capital Asset Management Framework shifted government leadership on the issue from a transactional to a transformational basis, potentially helping to alleviate the previous difficulties the government had with this issue. Evidence for this analysis is derived from documents, newspapers and trade, interest group and think‐tank publications, as well as interviews that the author conducted with public‐ and private‐sector executives in the summer and fall of 2005. Sommaire : Le gouvernement Libéral de la Colombie‐Britannique a remporté plus de succès que tout autre gouvernement provincial au Canada, en termes du nombre de partenariats publics‐privés qu'il a réussi à lancer. Les observateurs (que ceux‐ci pensent que ce résultat soit positif ou négatif) conviennent que ce succès est en partie attribuable au «Cadre de gestion des immobilisations». Lancé au printemps de 2002, ce projet est un ensemble de lignes directrices pour la totalité de la province que doivent respecter tous les ministères, toutes les agences et autres organismes publics cherchant à obtenir des contributions provinciales pour leurs dépenses en capital. Les adhérents à la Nouvelle gestion publique (comme le gouvernement Libéral) déclarent fréquemment que les gestionnaires publics devraient être habilités à produire des résultats, àêtre jugés sur ces résultats, et non pas être liés par des procédures rigides. C'est dans cet état d'esprit que l'article examine les lignes directrices du Cadre de gestion des immobilisations. L'article étudie également en profondeur comment l'introduction du Cadre de gestion des immobilisations a fait basculer l'approche des dirigeants gouvernementaux sur la question d'une base transactionnelle à une base transformationnelle, en aidant éventuellement à alléger les difficultés précédentes que le gouvernement avait rencontrées à cet égard. Les éléments de preuve de cette analyse proviennent de documents, de journaux et de revues spécialisées, de publications de groupes d'intérêts et de groupes de réflexion, ainsi que d'interviews que l'auteur a menées auprès du personnel de direction des secteurs public et privé au cours de l'été et de l'automne 2005.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".