Participatory action research approach to public sector procurement selection

Love, P E D; Edwards, D J; Irani, Z and Sharif, A (2012) Participatory action research approach to public sector procurement selection. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(3), pp. 311-322. ISSN 0733-9364

Abstract

Selecting an appropriate procurement method to deliver supply chain efficiencies can reduce the costs of public sector projects by an average of 5%. Despite the considerable practical experience of Australian governments in the public sector, little agreement exists about how to effectively select an approach to deliver social infrastructure (e.g.,schools, hospitals, museums, and prisons). Determining the optimal procurement approach for social infrastructure is a challenging task considering the array of procurement methods available and the criteria that must be assessed. Methods for procurement selection that have been developed are prescriptive and unable to deal with the complex and changing needs of public sector clients. As a result, a robust procurement selection process is developed and examined using a participatory action research. Focus groups, comprised of key stakeholders involved with delivering an educational project, examined the approach's applicability and use in determining a suitable procurement method. Participants overwhelmingly supported the outcome, albeit a small minority who had limited wider exposure to alternative methods initially perceived their bastion (i.e.,a default traditional lump sum [TLS]) to be a credible option. Indeed, those participants with limited knowledge procured almost 95% of social infrastructure projects using a TLS and did not adopt a formal procurement method selection approach. Application of the approach presented in this paper, by the public sector agency responsible for delivering its social infrastructure projects, provides a clear indication of demonstrable impact. The procurement approach that is produced enables decision makers to constantly reevaluate outcomes in the form of recommendations that are grounded in practice, reflection, and detailed evaluation.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: Australia; decision making; procurement; public sector; risk; risk management; social infrastructure
Index terms: infrastructure project, risk management, default, exposure, action research, efficiency, reflection, prison, educational project, procurement method, agency, option, public sector procurement, minority, focus group, public-sector client, public sector, decision-making, Australia
Subjects: decision analysis, infrastructure and transport systems, sociology, administrative law, Geography, risk assessment, curriculum development, dispute resolution, public and environmental health, data collection methods, contractual arrangements, professional development, performance management
Topics: Information Management, Ethics, Engineering Principles, Research Practice, Risk Management, Stakeholder Management, Procurement, Legal Issues, Education, Quality Management, Geographical Context, Health and Safety
Descriptive scope: 4 PCTE

N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here