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

Thesis Keith Gale 2013(M=0.166, SD=0.112), t (118) =1.869, p=0.064). The magnitude of the differencesin the means was small (0.029).8.9.3 Interpretation of variance of total transaction cost quotientEta squared for variance = 3.547²3.547² + (60 + 60 – 2)Eta squared for variance = 0.096An independent t-test was used to compare the total transaction costs for discreteverses framework projects. There was a significant difference in scores for discreteprojects (M=0.447, SD=0.342) and framework projects (M=0.276, SD=0.151), t(118) =3.547, p=0.001). The magnitude of the differences in the means wasmoderate to large (0.096).8.10 Summary of analysis of transaction costsSeparation of transaction costs between engagement and monitoring allowconclusions for each to be reached. Reflection of hypothesis H4 related toengagement transaction costs proposed that no significant difference would bedetected. A theoretical basis supporting this proposition was arrived throughreference to analysis of tendering methods between engagement transaction costs offramework agreements and traditional approaches (Murdoch and Hughes, 2008). Thereasoning, following examination of published literature, was that for public sectorprocurement engagement either method would require the same stages of documentproduction and control – ergo, incurring similar costs for both methods.The large magnitude of difference in the means (0.174) is surprising and is supportedby the mean difference in engagement cost quotient (0.2236 – 0.1106). Frameworkmethods in this case study have proportionally lower costs per project forengagement when compared with discrete methods. There is no directly publishedresearch concerning engagement costs for framework agreements (Hughes et al,2006) but a comment from a participant may suggest why framework agreement180