PhD Final Thesis April 2013.pdf - Anglia Ruskin Research Online

Thesis Keith Gale 20137.5 Simple statistical comparative results from discrete and framework projectsusing raw dataTables 7.3 and 7.4 indicate percentage variances between discrete and frameworkprojects showing differing performance outcomes between the two groups.Indications from these initial results confirm differing outcomes allowing a summarytable to be produced. Table 7.5 grades results by percentage value.Section 1 of Table 7.5 compares the percentage of projects finished on time withthose finished late. A contrast with results from 36 highways projects undertaken byGraves and Rowe (1999, p11) under the Agile Construction Initiative showed thatonly 30% of projects within that specialist area were completed within contractualtime scales. Traditional discrete projects contained within this research (highwaysrelated civil engineering related) by comparison only achieved a completion successof 12% whereas framework projects achieved a 64% success rate using the samemeasure.Table 7.5: Headline analysis of comparative resultsSection 1 SourceProjects finished early or ontimeProjects finished lateAgile Construction (Gravesand Rowe 1999)30% 70%Case study discreet projects 12% 88%Case study framework projects 64% 36%Section 2 SourceProjects started on time Projects started lateCase study discreet projects 53% 47%Case study framework projects 82% 18%Section 3 SourceProjects finished with defects Projects finished without defectsBEDC (1974) office buildingsCase study discreet projects46%38%54%62%Case study framework projects 10% 90%Section 2 of Table 7.5 shows that discrete projects started on time upon 53% ofoccasions, whereas those undertaken within frameworks achieved an 82% successrate. Published data has not been found to provide comparison with the case studyresults.128