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

Thesis Keith Gale 2013Table 7.10: Project characteristics and relevance to this researchRank/Characteristic Descriptor Accept/reject as variable1 Complexity Differentiation ofprojects that areconsidered complexby programming orsequencing2 Size (value) Differentiationbetween projects bycontract valuesAll projects within this case studyare comparable in terms ofcomplexity and therefore novariable existsGroup projects by value bands as avariable3 Political placement(Client)Differentiate betweendifferent clientsAll projects are for a single publicsector client so no variable exists4 Timescales/restrictedworking hours5 Type (housing,infrastructure)Separate projects thatare significantlydifferent inrestrictionDifferentiate betweendifferent projecttypesApart from very minor elements ofwork governed by restrictive hours,all projects are undertaken withinnormal working hours so novariable existsAll projects are within the categoryof civil engineering highwayinfrastructure – no variation in type6 Form of contract Separate projectswith different formsof contract7 Location, region Group projects bylocation or regionAll case study projects use NEC3conditions of contract – no variableexistsAll projects are located within a 30mile radius of Winchester, UK – novariable exists8 TechnologicaladvancementSeparate projects bytechnologicalclassificationAll projects are to the sametechnological classification usingstandard construction methods – novariable applicable9 Project life cycle Group projects bylife cycleAll projects have a conventionallife span so no variable exists10 Quality orspecificationSeparate projects byspecification typeAll projects are to the samehighways specification (MCHW) –no variables exist149