Skitmore, R M and Marsden, D E (1988) Which procurement system? Towards a universal procurement selection technique. Construction Management and Economics, 6(1), pp. 71-89. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Two approaches are described which aid the selection of the most appropriate procurement arrangements for a building project. The first is a multi-attribute technique based on the National Economic Development Office procurement path decision chart. A small study is described in which the utility factors involved were weighted by averaging the scores of five 'experts' for three hypothetical building projects. A concordance analysis is used to provide some evidence of any abnormal data sources. When applied to the study data, one of the experts was seen to be atypical. The second approach is by means of discriminant analysis. This was found to provide reasonably consistent predictions through three discriminant functions. The analysis also showed the quality criteria to have no significant impact on the decision process. Both approaches provided identical and intuitively correct answers in the study described. Some concluding remarks are made on the potential of discriminant analysis for future research and development in procurement selection techniques.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | decision aids; discriminant analysis; multi-attribute analysis; post hoc hypotheses; procurement; statistical analysis; utility |
| Index terms: | evidence, research and development, multi-attribute analysis, economic development, procurement system, statistical analysis, decision process, discriminant analysis |
| Subjects: | research management, decision analysis, statistical analysis, economic development, contractual arrangements, data science, evaluation and assessment methods |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Procurement, Risk Management, Research Practice |
| 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