Innovation partnership procurement: EU directive impact

Eadie, R and Potts, S (2016) Innovation partnership procurement: EU directive impact. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 169(6), pp. 238-247. ISSN 17514304

Abstract

In consultations prior to the UK government's response to changes to the EU procurement directives, the impact and innovation of small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) were examined to try to ensure a positive impact across the industry. To produce innovation, a new innovation partnership procedure was introduced. Subsequent to publication of the procedure, this paper examines perceptions from tenderers and the government. Seventy-one completed questionnaire responses were received from tenderers, with a further 19 from government procurers. The findings indicate that 69% of tenderers intend involvement in the future, but the government is evenly split on the ability to use the procedure and is unsure as to its benefits. While the majority considered that little change would result in relation to value for money, speed of innovation to market and increase in innovative solutions, more were positive than negative towards the procedure. Even though economic operators are keen to use it, there is little desire for its use within government departments, despite the fact that considering it would increase SME involvement.

Item Type: Article
Uncontrolled Keywords: contracts & law; procurement
Index terms: partnership, questionnaire, publication, value-for-money
Subjects: partnership management, data collection methods, evaluation, research dissemination and communication
Topics: Research Practice, Information Management, Stakeholder Management, Value Management
Descriptive scope: 3 PCA

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