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

Thesis Keith Gale 2013took the opportunity to analyse detailed and reliable cost records – in contrast toprevious transaction cost research where accurate timesheet records were consideredunstable (Hughes et al, 2006).Conclusions in paragraph 8.18 of empirical evidence confirmed a hypothesis ofparity for performance monitoring costs between the two procurement methods (Eta2= 0.029), but a difference existed with engagement transaction costs (Eta2 = 0.174).The magnitude of difference in the means was significant – but unexpectedlyfavoured framework agreements. One area suggested for this result was thatengagement transaction costs are reduced through framework agreements due tostandardisation and repetition of contract documentation and control mechanisms.12.4 Reflection of the procurement performance modelAs no directly comparable research into framework agreements has been discoveredthrough the literal review, a priori model was constructed from published literatureinto sociological behaviours of a technical class and measurement of performance.The model proposed improvements with performance through frameworkagreements by ten sociological behaviours (of high performing groups) and operationof a performance management process.Examination of the effects of performance measurement and management processwas examined through a quantitative identification of project outcomes. Resultsreflecting operational controls confirmed the operational construct proposed by themodel, indicating that operational methods of framework agreements do encourageperformance improvement. Reinforcing measured improvements in project outcomesafforded by framework agreements are participant’s views of the outcomes.Investigation of sociological behaviours was undertaken through a predominantqualitative survey using questionnaire and interview methods. Three analyticalmethods were used to detect the most significant behaviours and underlying factors.Synthesis of results identified three significant behaviours, relationships, incentives,communication, set within a factor of duration. The underlying factor of durationreflects long term arrangements of framework agreements and allows developmentof the three significant behaviours. Furthermore, comments from practitionersidentify connections between the two constructs in the model. The revised model, aposteriori, is shown in Figure 11.5.277