12.07.2015 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Thesis</strong> Keith Gale 2013Justification of the action method was through use of analytical techniques allied toprofessional practice – reflecting the nature of a professional doctorate.Results from the action research project confirm that framework suppliers arecompetitive when removed from requirements of the framework and a newcomparable supplier is introduced. Although the single example is too small toprovide empirical evidence that may be extrapolated to a population, the results alignwithin a range anticipated by the t-tests.8.18 Summation of Hypotheses H3, H4 and H5This chapter examines the financial viability of frameworks when compared withdiscrete traditional procurement methods through discovery of transaction andproduction costs within the case study context. Three hypotheses are proposedfollowing from a literature search and each are restated in this paragraph togetherwith a brief discussion of results.H3: There is significant difference in production costs between frameworkagreements and traditional tendering methods due to reduced competition.General economic theory regarding a perfect market dictates that restriction with thenumber of suppliers will result in higher production prices (Locke, 1691; Harvey andJowsey, 2007). Operation of a framework agreement provides a barrier to opencompetition and hypothesis H3 follows a deductive extension of this proposition.Two measures were used to test this hypothesis and the results are contained withinparagraph 8.17. There is no significant difference between outcomes for frameworkor discrete projects – and a single action research project confirms the values.Hypothesis H3 is therefore rejected but explanation of why perfect market theorydoes not appear applicable is through statements made by experienced participants inthe qualitative interviews (see Chapter 11, paragraph 11.3). One supplier states thatframeworks are competitive because ….you’ve got this continuous programming,planning, arrangement and working on both sides effects is a good environment toachieve that (supplier 08 SJ). Another states ‘clearly the framework suppliersunderstand what Hampshire requires and have priced accordingly’ (Estimator of Na192

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!