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

Thesis Keith Gale 2013for discrete projects (M=0.677, SD=0.149) and framework projects (M=0.924,SD=0.092), t (162) =-11.602, p=0.000). The magnitude of the differences in themeans was large (0.454).7.16 Analysis of results – Stage Two independent samples t-testsAn exploration of the effects of project size by value was undertaken by compilingtwo groups matched closely for size according to contract sum. 60 discrete projectsof a total value of £30,431,702.52 (mean = £507,195.04) with 60 framework projectsof a total value of £16,403,695.97 (mean = £273,394.93). Although mean values areslightly skewed it was proposed that removal of very small projects (generally lessthan £21,000.00) would enable a realistic comparison to be made. Group statistics forthe 120 discrete and framework projects are shown in Table 7.13.Table 7.13: Group statistics for 120 discrete and framework projectsStage Two - Group StatisticsDiscrete or frameworkproject N MeanStd.DeviationStd. Error MeanCSR1A resultDiscrete project 60 .15810 .014705 .001898Framework project 60 .16135 .011002 .001420CSR1B resultDiscrete project 60 .12952 .047085 .006079Framework project 60 .14776 .036402 .004699CSF2 resultDiscrete project 60 .10733 .054185 .006995Framework project 60 .23968 .044942 .005802CSF3 resultDiscrete project 60 .12333 .098060 .012660Framework project 60 .17000 .072017 .009297CSF4 resultDiscrete project 60 .15886 .044564 .005753Framework project 60 .18939 .032726 .004225Project successindexDiscrete project 60 .677139 .1492751 .0192713Framework project 60 .908174 .0939301 .0121263As with Stage One, independent samples t-tests are applied to results from the datasheet using selection of two variables – one categorical independent variablerepresenting each group (discrete or framework projects), one continuous156