INTERVIEWS Within-case analysis
CLIENT VENDOR In three cases the interviewees appoint that the
eight weeks indication for the duration of the clarification phase by the client is adopted as a leading indication for the planning of this phase. • To realize a compact planning the vendor
should take the lead.
• The client should apply short response lead
time (should be included in the contractual documents).
• Investments made during the clarification phase will be regained after the clarification phase (commercial interest to set a clear project scope); alignment between client and vendor is considered important. • Period in which the bids are valid should
be taken into account for the planning
(gestanddoeningstermijn), and should be
extended when necessary.
• A selection of interviewees indicates that their own processes are leading in the planning;
only one interviewee indicates that the
planning and duration are based on their
processes.
• Holidays make the planning more difficult. • Various interviewees indicate that the
clarification phase should take as long as
necessary.
Client:
• Indication of eight weeks is often adopted
as leading for the planning.
• During the clarification phase the client has
to consider extending the period in which the bids of all vendors are valid.
• The contractual response lead times of the client make it difficult to plan the clarification phase.
• High focus on time and high time pressure put additional pressure on the clarification phase and force vendor’s to take over the
eight weeks.
• Deadlines are imposed and difficulties to plan the clarification phase due to
holidays.
Vendor:
• Own processes are not always leading, should be the basis of the planning.
• Deadlines are imposed and difficulties to plan the clarification phase occur due to
holidays.
• Experience with Best Value
• Complexity • Budgeting of the
clarification phase • Iterations
• Response lead time of the
client
• Planning deviations • Mobilization period • Products clarification phase • Clarification phase process • Clarification phase training • Elaboration of value added
plan
• Lead
• Communication
The eight weeks that given to the vendor as an indicated by the client is in general taken over by the vendor as leading. It is noted that the
period in which the bids are valid (gestanddoeningstermijn) plays an important role in the possible duration of the clarification phase. It is concluded that a clarification phase that is planned during the holidays (especially the summer) makes planning of the process difficult.
In general can it be concluded that interviewees indicate that the period should take as long as necessary and that it is valuable for the
execution phase to align the client and vendor and set the scope during the clarification phase. The contractual response lead time for the execution phase (acceptatietermijnen) of the client are often interpreted as leading for the clarification phase as well (by the vendor) and make
it difficult to plan within the eight weeks because if these periods are taken into account the products should be delivered within three to four
weeks according to the vendors. Budgeting of the clarification phase
Table 5.5: Budgeting of the clarification phase
CONCLUSIONS CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS RELATION OTHER
TOPICS RELATION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
(A = Agency theory S= Stewardship theory)
CLIENT VENDOR
100% of the vendors indicate that the clarification phase was budgeted in the overall bid and 100% of the vendors indicate that the budget was not sufficient to cover the costs of the clarification phase. To realize a compact
planning it is indicated by the vendor should take the lead.
• If there is no specific request by the client for a specification of the vendors work with internal budgets for the clarification phase. • The cost overruns are significant; up to twice
the initial budget for the clarification phase. • Vendors also indicate that they pay an
‘educational’ fee due to lack of experience and
the will to learn to work with the Best Value approach.
• It is indicated that when the budget for
the clarification phase is approached like a traditional project (cutting costs were possible) it is not likely that the costs are
covering the expenses.
• Important reasons for the overrun are underestimation of the demands in terms of time, scope and detail of the products, and
lacking insight in the process.
Client:
• The client could demand a cost specification in the bid to actively support a budget for the clarification phase for the vendors (facilitating); it remains however
the responsibility of the vendor.
Vendor:
• Ensure that the processes of the
clarification phase and the demanded products are understood sufficiently to plan and budget a realistic process. • The clarification phase budget should be
included in the bid.
• Complexity • Preparing of planning
• Products clarification phase
Application:
• Demand for more details or distrust can lead to utilization of the power positions of the client to demand more details which lead to (significant) budget overruns (A). • Lacking knowledge about the clarification
phase lead to budgets that are too low (A).
The clarification phase is either budgeted in the bid or through internal budgets which are often included in more hidden posts elsewhere in the bid. The vendors overall understand that the clarification phase is part of the overall project and include the costs in the bid. Based on the interviews can it be concluded that the set budget is in 100% of the cases not sufficient to cover the costs of the clarification phase. Aspects such as the longer duration and the higher level of detail of the products than initially expected contribute to the significant higher costs,
which sometimes are as high as twice the initial estimations. The vendors indicate that they are in a learning process and are prepared to pay a
learning fee to a certain extent. Iterations
Table 5.6: Iterations
CONCLUSIONS CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS RELATION OTHER
TOPICS RELATION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
(A = Agency theory S= Stewardship theory)
CLIENT VENDOR
Only 18% of the interviewees indicate that the planned iterations were sufficient to develop the
envisioned products.
• Sometimes the client only gets to see the products for the first time at the end of the planning (95% versions).
• It is indicated that the number of iterations differs per product. In general do the project management plan and the risk management plan take three to six iterations (maximum was eight), while products like the planning and value added plan take less (one to three). • Sometimes several iterations on the
clarification phase products occur after the phase (process agreements to award).
Vendor:
• Delivering a 95% version at the end of the clarification phase is too late to ensure
products that will be accepted.
• The number of iterations differs per
product.
Client/vendor
• When the outline of the products is
sufficient it is possible to consider
awarding the project with process
agreements for specific aspects of the
products.
• Experience with Best Value
• Complexity • Preparing of planning
• Planning deviations • Products clarification phase • Clarification phase process
Central notions:
• Distrust results in more iterations due to increased demand for details (A). • Client uses iterations sometimes as control
mechanism (A).
• Trust develops through iterations (S). • Client tends to get involved during
iterations (S). Theoretical concepts:
• Sometimes iterations as monitoring systems (A).
• Vendor should have a high responsibility
and autonomy for the number and content of the iterations (S).
Application:
• Goals are aligned through the iterations (S).
It is concluded that when iterations are planned they are often not sufficient in number or duration to produce the products that are envisioned by the client. Important reasons why iterations are not planned or why the planned iterations are not sufficient are related to the differences in interpretation of the products scope and the level of detail necessary to award the project. Iterations that are made additionally are made after a product had been declined for awarding and are almost in all cases after the original deadline of the planning (when one iteration is planned the products are delivered very late and the client has often no idea what the vendor has produced or is producing). When iterations are used the vendor interviewees indicate that the products delivered at the end of iterations are not complete and final products yet but the client tends to criticize them as final products which makes it difficult to discuss the products. It can furthermore be concluded that in general the number of iterations or the duration of the iterations that are planned in too low to produce the envisioned products. The number of iterations depends on the product but based on the interviews a general indication is three to six iterations for more complex products such as the project management plan and the risk management plan, and one to three iterations for less complex products such as the planning and the elaboration of the value added plan.
Response lead times of the client
Table 5.7: Response lead times of the client
CONCLUSIONS CROSS-CASE ANALYSIS RECOMMENDATIONS RELATION OTHER
TOPICS RELATION THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
(A = Agency theory S= Stewardship theory)
CLIENT VENDOR