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

Thesis Keith Gale 2013H1 proposes that operational use of framework agreements, with focus uponrecording key project performance outcomes, coupled with incentives through aperformance model will improve performance of critical success factors in aconstruction project. Recognition of five critical success factors developed frompublished research is:CSF1A – starting on time – p value = > 0.05CSF1B – finishing on time - p value = < 0.05CSF2 – accuracy of payments - p value = < 0.05CSF3 – right first time - p value = < 0.05CSF4 – Health and safety - p value = < 0.05Although specific to this case study, the five CSF’s are an extension of the irontriangle proposed by Atkinson (1999). To this end .33 is weighted toward timescales(CSF1A and 1B), .27 toward finance (CSF2) and .4 toward quality (CSF3 and4).Simplistic statistical outcomes shown at Table 7.5 indicated a significant differencein favour of framework agreement projects for improvement in timescales (CSF1Aand CSF1B) but independent t-tests for CSF1A indicates a small magnitude ofdifference and CSF1B a small to moderate/moderate difference of the means. Thisvariance is due to the way results are calculated. Table 7.5 represents the number oflate projects irrespective of extent whereas CSF1A and 1B registers the extent ofvariance in timescale relative to project duration. On this basis at a headline level,framework projects within the case study perform significantly better than discreteprojects. When the project duration is added into the equation results betweendiscrete and framework projects show a small to moderate difference between thegroups.Accuracy of payments (CSF2) shows a consistent variance at both Stages using t-testoutcomes. CSF3 (right first time) results are consistent with favour towardframework projects which supports simplistic outcomes in Table 7.5. Health andsafety outcomes (CSF4) show a significant improvement in performance withframework projects.In summary, all CSF results show a positive bias toward improved performance withframework projects ranging from very small to large. The magnitude of differencevaries according to the CSF itself and the method of measurement and calculation.Whilst CSF1A supports a null hypothesis, CSF1B, CSF2, CSF3 and CSF4 with pvalues not exceeding 0.05 do support the proposition of H1.165