White, A S (2005) Public sector tendering: Issues and analysis. In: Khosrowshahi, F (ed.) Proceedings of 21st Annual ARCOM Conference, 7-9 September 2005, London, UK.
Abstract
The absence of a robust tendering theory and a companion body of knowledge, has nurtured a public sector environment which promulgates problematic mathematical processes and mandates procedures which make the implementation of superior methods unlikely. Current policies tend to be insensitive to change except in the face of judicial reasoning. The interplay of auction theory, game theory, decision theory, domain ontology and agreement design, provides a fruitful environment for establishing a theory of tendering with an associated body of knowledge. A pre-cursor activity is the design of a framework to study these interactions.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Bayesian belief nets; bidding; contractor selection; decision analysis; ontology |
| Index terms: | ontology, interaction, body of knowledge, reasoning, implementation, mandate, face, contractor selection, public sector, decision theory, bidding, auction theory, decision analysis, game theory |
| Subjects: | cognitive psychology, administrative law, behavioral psychology, economics, education and knowledge transfer, psychology, political science, knowledge management, decision analysis, tendering, decision models, contractual arrangements, bidding |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Legal Issues, Governance, Information Management, Procurement, Organizational Design, Risk Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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