Checking procurement proposals Personal proposal by Per-Arne Andersen D7 · Spring 2027 https://thesis.uya.no/proposals/compare-the-evidence/ Check whether a supplier’s proposal actually provides evidence for each procurement requirement. TECHNICAL - Build a comparison table linking each supplier claim to its cited bid passage. - Compare clickable links with equivalent document/page references; do not automatically flag planted faults. DATA (planned) 3 fictional IT tenders × 4 supplier bids Each tender has 10 requirements. Vary 0–4 unsupported claims and 0–2 contradictions per bid, including clean bids. Keep a hidden, independently reviewed answer key. METHOD 8 IS students review 6 disjoint bids, 3 per condition, with identical claims and accessible source packs. Balance order and bid difficulty; hide fault counts. Report per-person misses, false alarms, time, confidence and evidence-backed reasons. OUTPUT Comparison screen, bid set and review results. BACHELOR Task: Build a procurement comparison table with links to supporting bid paragraphs. Data: 3 fictional IT tenders × 4 supplier bids (planned) Each tender has 10 requirements. Vary 0–4 unsupported claims and 0–2 contradictions per bid, including clean bids. Keep a hidden, independently reviewed answer key. Requires: Recruit students and an independent answer-key reviewer. Method: Use fictional bids and the hidden issue key; test link correctness and observe reviewers completing comparison tasks. Plan 4 participant sessions. Output: A comparison prototype and usability report. Use relevant literature to justify the established approach; a new research contribution is not the aim of this proposal. MASTER Test whether source navigation helps reviewers distinguish documented evidence from persuasive claims. Compare identical bids with/without direct paragraph links, separating clean bids and different fault types. Intended contribution: Evidence about the limits of traceability in procurement judgement. STARTING PAPERS Vasconcelos et al. (2023) — Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.06823 Compare verification cost with trust as explanations of observed decisions. Wang & Strong (1996) — Beyond Accuracy: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07421222.1996.11518099 Distinguish accuracy, completeness, representation and fitness for the task. Search Scopus or Web of Science and ACM Digital Library using the topic query, then follow citations to the thesis start date. Record searches and compare methods, data, findings and limitations in literature-matrix.csv. Use that review to confirm or revise the gap and choose a current comparator. The linked papers are starting points. START HERE Tools: HTML/CSS/JavaScript, JSON, spreadsheet 1. Write one tender with 10 requirements and one clean bid. 2. Create clean and faulty bids with varied fault counts; independently review the hidden answer key. 3. Prepare disjoint matched bid sets and pilot a single review task before recruitment. Literature search: procurement decision support evidence traceability verification Study controls: - Unsupported means not substantiated in the supplied pack; contradictions concern the same property and period. - Independently check keys and source links. Vary faults and include clean bids so participants cannot stop at an expected count. - Student results concern novice reviewers, not professional procurement validation. - Before collecting participant data, agree consent, storage and withdrawal handling with the supervisor. Use participant codes, not names, in study files. - Separate silent timed tasks from retrospective interviews. Timing during think-aloud sessions is descriptive, not an isolated interface-speed effect. - For the master’s study, use the research task above to define the factors and comparisons in this pilot plan. Preregister one primary outcome and feasible scope after the literature review; do not add every possible model or interface variant. REQUIRES Recruit 8 students and an independent answer-key reviewer. -------------------- NON-TECHNICAL - Prepare the same bids as documents and a manual comparison spreadsheet. - Observe reviewers checking evidence and resolving contradictory claims. DATA (planned) 8 fictional bids + 6 procurement reviewers Two IT tenders, 4 bids each, 10 requirements/tender. Vary 0–4 unsupported claims and 0–2 contradictions, including clean bids; hide counts from reviewers. METHOD Think-aloud document review; count detected faults against the answer key and code verification strategies. OUTPUT Evidence checklist and findings on missed supplier claims. BACHELOR Task: Document which evidence reviewers need to compare procurement bids. Data: 8 fictional bids (planned) Two IT tenders, 4 bids each, 10 requirements/tender. Vary 0–4 unsupported claims and 0–2 contradictions, including clean bids; hide counts from reviewers. Requires: Recruit procurement staff; no confidential tenders. Method: Use fictional bid packs in scenario interviews; trace each concern to a missing or unclear document item. Plan 4 participant sessions. Output: An evidence checklist and proposed comparison template. Use relevant literature to justify the established approach; a new research contribution is not the aim of this proposal. MASTER Explain why reviewers accept different evidence for the same procurement criterion. Contrast verification cost with professional role expectations; examine disputed and clean bids without assuming consensus is truth. Intended contribution: A theory-based account of evidence sufficiency and review responsibility. STARTING PAPERS Orlikowski & Gash (1994) — Technological Frames: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/196734.196745 Compare how roles interpret the purpose, operation and use of the same system. Vasconcelos et al. (2023) — Explanations Can Reduce Overreliance: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.06823 Compare verification cost with trust as explanations of observed decisions. Search Scopus or Web of Science and ACM Digital Library using the topic query, then follow citations to the thesis start date. Record searches and compare methods, data, findings and limitations in literature-matrix.csv. Use that review to confirm or revise the gap and choose a current comparator. The linked papers are starting points. START HERE Tools: LibreOffice Writer/Calc, audio recorder with consent; no programming required. 1. Prepare a pilot with 2 examples from: 8 fictional bids + 6 procurement reviewers. Write the task questions and a reference answer sheet. 2. Write a recruitment message, information sheet and consent form for the participants named above. Agree privacy handling with the supervisor before contact. 3. Pilot one session after approval; revise unclear questions, freeze the task sets and coding categories, then recruit the planned sample. Literature search: procurement decision support evidence traceability verification qualitative scenario study Study controls: - Before collecting participant data, agree consent, storage and withdrawal handling with the supervisor. Use participant codes, not names, in study files. - Pilot separately, then freeze the questions and coding plan. Check objective answer keys independently; keep an audit trail of coding, including disagreements. - For comparisons, counterbalance order and case assignment; do not show a person both versions of one case. Report participant-level findings, not repeated tasks as independent people. REQUIRES Recruit procurement staff; no confidential tenders. Bachelor: apply established methods and evaluate a practical solution or study. Master: position a research question in current scientific literature, investigate a mechanism or unresolved problem, and explain the contribution. Final scope is agreed with me. Study sizes are proposed; participant recruitment and planned materials are not already arranged.