Challender, J; Farrell, P and Sherratt, F (2016) Collaborative trust in UK further education (FE) procurement strategies. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
The further education sector has over recent years largely focused on increasing partnering strategies for collaborative procurement of major capital projects. Such initiatives are heralded as a vehicle to obtain best value, improved levels of quality and optimum service delivery. Yet there is still evidence of low levels of client satisfaction, owing mostly to poor cost and time predictability. The study aim explores the extent to which trust is a necessary part of this process and a viable tool in collaboratively procuring more successful UK further education procurement strategies. A review of literature identifies a framework for measuring the degree of trust through established trust-related attributes and behaviours whilst trust building mechanisms are classified under three themed groups, namely motivational, ethical, and organisational initiatives. A mixed method approach of quantitative and qualitative methodologies is adopted with the former using 79 survey questionnaires and subjecting data to correlation analysis. The research population is restricted to those contracting, consulting and client organisations that have had experience of collaboratively procured further educational projects. Quantitative study findings have determined that there is a Pearson’s Product Moment correlation coefficient of 0.87 between all trust building mechanisms and trust generated. Based on a p value of ≤ 0.05 it suggests a significant influence between the two variables. Cronbach’s Alpha test results revealed good reliability based on a coefficient of 0.57. Qualitative study findings inform the discussion of why organisations feel certain trust building mechanisms are particularly successful. These include incentive provisions, workshops, CPD, collaboration management systems, senior management commitment, open and joint communication and accounting policies.The study gives greater understanding of how trust building mechanisms can be designed and implemented for improving project outcomes. Future qualitative research is recommended to further explore trust building initiatives in developing a framework for increasing trust in partnering strategies.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | collaboration; integration; procurement; partnering; trust. |
| Index terms: | accounting, trust-building, methodology, qualitative research, integration, capital project, population, collaboration, best value, evidence, questionnaire, educational project, client satisfaction, commitment, qualitative study, strategy, client organization, survey, project outcome, correlation analysis, procurement strategy, partnering, management system, service delivery, mixed method, workshop, low level |
| Subjects: | organizational analysis, demography, partnership management, measurement and scaling, statistical analysis, management, research methods, service delivery, psychology, bidding, curriculum development, contractual arrangements, strategic project management, economic analysis, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, construction type, client relations, project completion, research design and methodology |
| Topics: | Urban Studies, Education, Organizational Design, Research Practice, Project Management, Business Strategy, Procurement, Construction Technology, Stakeholder Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
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