Choose one track. Master’s proposals target Spring 2027. Final scope and programme approval are agreed with the supervisor; bachelor scopes are suggested adaptations.
TRACK 01 · IMPLEMENTATION INCLUDED
Technical track
Develop a working solution and test whether it addresses the problem.
Possible research question
Can source-linked proposal comparison improve omission detection and reduce unsupported conclusions in procurement review?
Suggested tasks
Read research on evidence use in procurement and compare existing solutions.
Identify one problem faced by procurement reviewers.
Write a research question and define what the solution should do.
Create fictional procurement proposals and a clear list of requirements.
Build a comparison table that links each supplier claim to its source and lets reviewers flag missing evidence or correct mistakes.
Compare it with manual review and an AI summary without source links. Measure missed requirements and review time.
Explain what worked, what did not, and how the results compare with earlier research.
Evaluation, degree scope and deliverables
Study and evaluation
Compare the implemented solution with manual comparison and an AI summary without evidence links. Combine reproducible technical tests with an appropriate empirical evaluation.
Omissions detected
Unsupported comparison conclusions
Human review and correction effort
Degree scope
Bachelor’s
Build a requirement-to-evidence comparison table for a few fictional bids. Test source links and detection of missing responses.
Master’s
Compare review mechanisms on controlled cases, studying traceability, disagreement handling and verification effort.
Background
Programming
Document retrieval or LLM integration
Requirements analysis
Possible deliverables
A focused literature review, justified problem and research question
A working prototype with source code and setup instructions
A reproducible comparison and an appropriate study of use
A report explaining design lessons, results and limitations
TRACK 02 · NO IMPLEMENTATION REQUIRED
Non-technical track
Study existing systems, information or work practices. You do not need to develop software.
Possible research question
How do procurement reviewers assess the credibility of supplier claims and handle missing or conflicting evidence?
Suggested tasks
Read earlier studies of evidence use in procurement.
Choose one problem and write a research question the study can answer.
Analyse a small set of fictional bids against an explicit requirements rubric.
Observe reviewers comparing claims and checking their supporting documents.
Interview reviewers about disagreement, verification effort and responsibility for conclusions.
Analyse the interviews, observations or documents using a clearly described method. Look for disagreements as well as common patterns.
Explain the findings, compare them with earlier research and suggest practical improvements.
Evaluation, degree scope and deliverables
Study and evaluation
Use a bounded empirical study of evidence use in procurement. Justify case selection, recruitment and the analysis method. Distinguish observed behaviour from participants’ perceptions; use triangulation or a comparison where it serves the research question.
Evidence-checking practices and unsupported conclusions
Handling of omissions, disagreement and accountability
Evidence for the findings, conflicting cases and limits of the study
Degree scope
Bachelor’s
Study one case or a small set of existing materials. Agree the interviews, documents or scenario tasks with the supervisor. Describe the method, analyse the findings and give practical recommendations.
Master’s
Use a clear research question and relevant IS theory. Justify the cases, participants and analysis method. Explain what the findings add to earlier research and where they may apply. No software development is required.
Background
Literature review and academic writing
Qualitative or quantitative research methods
Interest in evidence use in procurement; no programming prerequisite
Possible deliverables
A literature review and research question
A study plan and approved research material
An analysis supported by interviews, observations, documents or scenario results
A thesis with findings, recommendations and limitations
Scope and access
Use artificial proposals and a fixed evaluation rubric. Do not make live supplier-selection or procurement decisions. These implementation-related limits apply when developing or testing a technical solution. For a non-technical study, agree access to participants or existing materials early, use approved or fictional cases where appropriate, and distinguish perceptions from observed outcomes.
Agree access to data, participants or existing materials and any required ethics or privacy review before committing. A non-technical track needs a systematic study, not a working prototype.
Full academic proposal
Working topic
Evidence-Linked Comparison of Public Procurement Proposals
Brief outline
This proposal examines evidence use in procurement in the work and information needs of procurement reviewers. The technical track combines a literature review and justified gap with requirements, design, implementation and evaluation of a bounded solution. The non-technical track investigates practices, experiences or organisational conditions through a systematic study of existing systems, documents or scenarios, without requiring implementation. Choose one track and agree the final research question, degree scope and contribution with the supervisor.
Programme fit
Information Systems. These are suggested research approaches, not a statement of confirmed programme policy. Agree the final title, track, degree scope and contribution with the supervisor and programme.
Shared research foundation
Review the literature; identify and justify a gap; formulate research questions; conduct a systematic study; analyse the evidence; explain the contribution relative to prior research and discuss limitations. The technical track additionally includes requirements, design, implementation and evaluation of an artifact.
