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

Thesis Keith Gale 2013Table 7.15: Summary of t-test resultsVariable/factorStage1pValue EtaTestresultresultsMagnitudeofdifferencep valueStage 2 resultsEtaTestresultMagnitudeofdifferenceCSF1A –starting on time0.278 0.007 Very small 0.173 0.016 SmallCSF1B –finishing ontime0.034 0.027 Small tomoderate0.019 0.046 ModerateCSF2 –Accuracy ofpayments0.000 0.709 Large 0.000 0.643 LargeCSF3 – rightfirst timeCSF4 – Healthand safety0.000 0.095 Moderate tolarge0.000 0.090 Moderate tolarge0.004 0.070 Moderate0.000 0.134 LargePS – ProjectSuccess Index0.000 0.454 Large 0.000 0.466 LargeA significant advantage of the available data contained within this case study isaccess to detailed project outcomes and critical success factors supporting theseoutcomes. A concern with quality of data voiced by Molenaar and Songer (1998) isnot relevant due to free access with contractual and operational records for eachproject.Recent research exploring the effect project characteristics has upon performance ofprojects been used to determine how analysis should be undertaken. Use of findingsby Favie and Maas (2008) positioned a top ten list of characteristics that identifiedonly one variable which may cause effect to performance outcomes from the casestudy data. This significant variable could only be through contract value as all othercharacteristics aligned well.P values and Eta test results in Table 7.15 indicate marginal differences in themagnitude of means between the two stages. A conclusion from this analysis is that162