(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "An evaluation report for the design competition subcategory of the Design Arts Program"

ar 







EVALUATION 

TECHNOLOGIES 

INCORPORATED 





AN EVALUATION REPORT 

FOR THE 

DESIGN COMPETITION SUBCATEGORY 

OF THE 

DESIGN ARTS PROGRAM 



Submitted to: 

Design Arts Program 
National Endowment for the Arts 



Submitted by: 

Evaluation Technologies Incorporated 

2020 North 14th Street, Sixth Floor 

Arlington, Virginia 22201 

(703) 525-5818 



Revised 
January 7, 1986 



October 25, 1985 



Mr. Peter Smith 

Design Arts Program 

National Endowment for the Arts 

1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. 

Washington, D.C. 20506 

Reference: Contract Number NEA DC 85-5 



Dear Mr. Smith: 

Enclosed please find the final report of the evaluation conducted for the 
Design Competition Subcategory. 

This evaluation was implemented along the basic framework of the evaluation 
design, which included two principle objectives. These were: (1) Determine 
the extent to which the design competitions funded by the Endowment have a 
high likelihood of being carried out; and (2) Determine the extent to which 
the design competitions funded by the Endowment enable the pbulic to become 
aware of/participate in the design process. These two objectives were 
analyzed primarily through a series of variables incorporating management and 
publicity data, and examined by individual grantee from 1982 and in the 
aggregate. 

This document is submitted for your review. Questions and comments are 
welcomed. 

Sincerely, 



BARBARA J. WAITE 
Project Manager 



cc: H. Horowitz 



Digitized by the Internet Archive 

in 2012 with funding from 

Boston Library Consortium Member Libraries 



http://archive.org/details/evaluationreport1986nati 



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 



Study Purpose and Evaluation Design 

This evaluation report contains the results of a test of the evaluation design 
developed by Evaluation Technologies Incorporated (ETI) for the Design Arts 
Program under a previous contract with the National Endowment for the Arts 
(The Design Arts Program, The Design Competition Subcategory: A Goal -Based 
Evaluation Design; April 24, 1984). 

The evaluation design examined two primary goals of the Design Competition 
Subcategory: the support of (1) competitions which have a high likelihood of 
being carried out, and (2) those which enable the public to become aware of 
and take part in the design process. The evaluation was based on the assump- 
tion that a competition's management and aaministrative procedures would have 
a significant bearing on the attainment of those goals. As a result, the 
evaluation design stressed the project administration process and included 
variables on professional advisors, schedules and funding levels. These were 
studied based on the hypothesis that a well-managed project would have a 
higher likelihood of being carried out. The second goal, involving public 
involvement, was analyzed through variables examining the level of funding 
allocated to publicity, as well as the number and types of advertising 
produced out of that amount. 

Evaluation Data 

The data are drawn from the grantees funded by Design Arts since FY 1982. 
This produced a total of 32 grantees, including 24 competitions and 8 
charrettes. Grantees funded prior to FY 1982 were excluded because of the 
differences in reporting requirements and the probability of missing data 
(tracked via phone interviews) being irrecoverable. The various indicators 
used to assess management performance or level of publicity were drawn from 
extensive discussions with program staff knowledgeable in the availability of 
existing aata and the likelihood of additional and/ or supplementary informa- 



tion being readily obtainable from the grantees. Grant files constitute the 
primary data source, including especially the grant application, the Final 
Descriptive Report and the Financial Status Report. 

Relationships among variables were examined using the chi-square statistic, 
which is a measure of the degree of association between one variable and 
another. It is used to indicate both the probable interconnection between two 
variables and also the direction of that relationship. For example, chi-square 
might produce a finding which demonstrates that the higher the entrance fee 
for a competition, the higher the prize value was also likely to be. 

Analysis and Findings 

The conclusions and recommendations drawn from this study represent both the 
statistical findings drawn from the analyses and qualitative information 
generated by the intensive review of grant files, and interviews both with 
Design Arts Program personnel and with grantees. 

The principle findings are presented in a brief form in the following pages. 
The analysis has, obviously, not been as completely elucidated in this 
executive sunmary as in the final report and readers are directed to that 
document for further description and definition. 

The evaluation found that the grantees are at an early stage of management 
development when the application is submitted. The basic ideas of what and 
how to implement a design competition are usually presented as a brief 
sketch. The shift from a sketch to a more fully detailed implementation plan 
occurs once the grant has actually been awarded and is a continual process 
throughout that grant period. 

It appears that the professional advisor may be the most important factor in 
the development of such a management plan. The advisor is usually asked to 
participate after the award of the grant and is also the only external factor 
affecting the day to day operations of the competition. Since the plan 
developed before the advisor's presence is incomplete, the relative ease of 



implementation would appear to derive from the advisor's expertise. While the 
management styles of the various advisors varied widely, it was the presence 
of that type of technical knowledge which offset the grantees' inexperience. 

While the Endowment was almost always the largest single financial contributor 
to a grantee, the grantees themselves were also major contributors. Evidence 
of commitments for at least 50 percent of the overall cost of the competition 
from sources other than the Endowment was frequently provided in the applica- 
tion. This demonstrates both the grantees' willingness to support an innova- 
tive procedure to produce an acceptable design and that the lack of pre-grant 
planning for the competition was more probably a function of the grantees' 
lack of information about the specific procedures involved in the design 
competition process. It seems clear that the funding mechanisms for a more 
traditional building project are already well developed. 

Most of the problems which arose among the various management activities 
stemmed from the relative inexperience of the grantees with the design compe- 
tition process. A particular example was the schedule, which was chronically 
under-estimated in terms of how long each of the specific tasks might take. 
An amended schedule (presumably by the professional advisor) was usually 
developed during the actual implementation. 

Another aspect of the competition planning process which caused problems for 
many grantees was the development of the architectural criteria necessary to 
meet the requirements of the grantees and of the site allocated. This type of 
information was the source of the only competition problem severe enough to 
warrant cancelling the entire process and starting all over again. 

Related to the problems of scheduling and the lack of architectural expertise 
is the persistent underbudgetting, which is related to a certain degree of 
inexperience with the competition process. It also demonstrates, however, the 
fund-raising capabilities of the grantees, who were able to obtain additional 
funds as required to offset any possible shortfall. 

The strongest variables in assessing the competition process were the value of 
the prize and the type of competition. In essence, the greater the prize, the 



higher the number of entrants and the more they are willing to pay for the 
privilege of competing. The structure of the competition (that is, one- or 
two-stage, et al . ) is apparently less important than the type of compensation, 
which is closely linked with the type of competition. In other words, a 
commission is more likely to be part of a project than either a plan or an 
idea competition. 

In most cases the description of the publicity variables proved disappointing. 
The lack of reporting, together with the lack of planning, indicates that this 
is not used effectively. This is somewhat peculiar in light of the grantees' 
demonstrated fund-raising abilities. 

Principle recommendations derived from the study were directed towards data 
recording procedures and potential areas for further research. All of the 
grantees filled out an application, which provided the primary source of 
pre-grant data. In the interests of comparability and to offset inconsisten- 
cies found among grantee Final Descriptive Reports, it may be useful to 
require grantees to complete another application form at the end of the grant 
period in lieu of, or in addition to, the Final Descriptive Reports. 

Additional possibilities for future research can be found in the relative 
composition of the jury, in the perceived efficacy of various management 
strategies, and in developing procedural manuals in overall competition 
management, mailed to the grantees with the original application form. 

The complete evaluation report presents detailed information on the structure 
of the evaluation, the study population, the data and analytical procedures 
employed, and the study findings and recommendations. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

I. INTRODUCTION 1 

A. Purpose 1 

B. The Evaluation Context 1 

C. The Evaluation Design 3 

D. The Grantee Population 5 

E. Methodology Caveats 6 

F. Data Collection Procedures ..- 9 

G. Data Analysis Procedures • 10 

H. Conclusions and Recommendations 12 

II. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 13 

A. Introduction 13 

B. Evaluation Objective 13 

C. Design Competition Management 14 

1. Management Practices 14 

2. Funding 18 

3. Budget and Cost • 24 

D. Design Competition Implementation 25 

1 . Typology 25 

a. Structure 25 

b. Area of Design Concern % 26 

2. Incentives , 29 

3. Participation 33 

III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 41 



APPENDIX A: Descriptive Data by Evaluation Variable for Each Grantee 
APPENDIX B: Competition and Charrette Crosstabs 



LIST OF FIGURES AND TA3LES 

Page 

Figure 1. Design Competition Evaluation Population 7 

Table 1. Evaluation Variables 15 

Table 2. Competition Management Activity Data Tables 19 

Table 3. Frequency of Types of Funding for Competitions 20 

Table 4. Frequency of Percentage Funded by Non-Federal Sources 21 

Table 5. Frequency of Types of Funding for Charrettes 22 

Table 6. Planned and Actual Total Costs for Competitions 24 

Table 7. Planned and Actual Total Costs of Charrettes 25 

Table 8. Competition Area of Design Concerns 27 

Table 9. Charrette Area of Design Concerns .. 28 

Table 10. Incentives for Competitions and Charrettes 29 

Table 11. Value of First Prize for Competitions 31 

Tabl e 1 2. Val ue of Fi rst Prize Charrettes 31 

Table 13. Distribution of Competition Fees 34 

Table 14. Publicity for Competitions 36 

Table 15. Publicity for Charrettes 37 

Table 16. Publicity of Results for Competitions and Charrettes 38 

Table 17. Percentages Budgeted for Publicity 39 

Table 18. Community Support for Competitions and Charrettes 40 



I. INTRODUCTION! 



A. PURPOSE 

The evaluation report is the result of a test of the evaluation design 
developed by Evaluation Technologies Incorporated (ET1) for the Design Arts 
Program under a previous contract with the National Endowment for the Arts 
(The Design Arts Program, The Design Competition Subcategory: A Goal -Based 
Evaluation Design; April 24, 1984). 

The purpose of this evaluation report is fourfold: (1) to document the test 
of the evaluation design; (2) to document the data base that was developed 
during the data collection phase of the evaluation process; (3) to present 
analytical findings; and (4) to provide recommendations to the Design Arts 
Program regarding refinements of the evaluation design, the maintenance of the 
automated data base of NEA design competitions, and of grantee reporting 
requirements. 

B. THE EVALUATION CONTEXT 

The Design Arts Program of the National Endowment for the Arts seeks to 
nurture and support excellence in the design fields of architecture, land- 
scape architecture, urban design and planning, interior design, industrial 
design, graphic design, and fashion design. It does so in two ways: (1) by 
providing grant support to organizations and individuals, and (2) through its 
Design Excellence Project, by encouraging both citizens and government to 
recognize the important role played by good design in "making our environment 
more beautiful, more efficient and less costly." The strategy of the 
Design Arts Program in all of its activities is to provide leadership in the 
field by assisting innovative design projects and projects which can serve as 
examples of models for the country generally. 



1/ National Endowment for the Arts, Design Arts Program. "Application Guide- 
lines Fiscal Year 1983," p. 1. 

1 



In its grant-making activities, the Design Arts Program funds projects in the 
generic categories of (1) Demonstration, (2) Communication, and (3) 
Exploration/Research. These categories allow the Program to focus on the 
broadest range of design areas/ topics and yet also to assist projects that 
might serve as models and/or that treat design issues which might be 
identified, from time to time, as meriting priority attention. Each of the 
generic grant categories has its own goals and objectives and specific 
subcategories which address one or more of the category goals. 

This evaluation focused on the Design Competition subcategory of the Design 
Demonstration category. This category has three major goals: 

o To support outstanding design and planning projects that may serve 
as models for the field; 

o To support projects that stimulate the field and encourage innova- 
tive ideas and activities in areas of special concern; 

o To support projects that encourage competitive processes for 
selecting outstanding designs and design professionals. 

The Design Competition subcategory contributes in general to the achievement 
of the first two goals, but is directed specifically toward the achievement of 
the third goal. The Design Competition subcategory supports design competi- 
tions which: 

o Offer opportunities to new and/ or excellent designers; 

o Produce new solutions to design problems; 

o Address issues of national or regional concern; 

o Have a high likelihood of being carried out; 

o Enable the public to become aware of, ano take part in, the design 
process. 



C. THE EVALUATION DESIGN 

The evaluation design is based upon the assumption that the management and 
administrative rules and procedures of a design competition have significant 
bearing on its likelihood of being carried out and its ability to arouse 
public awareness of, and involvement in, the design process. 

The evaluation objective is defined in this way: 

To what extent does the Design Arts Program meet its objectives of 
funding competitions that have a high likelihood of being carried out 
and that enable the public to become aware of, and participate in, 
the design process? 

The first part of this objective addresses the project administration 
process. The underlying assumption is that "high likelihood" is a function of 
the competition rules and procedures. The set of questions developed for this 
objective refer to budget and management issues, using these as proxies for 
the ability to implement any given project. This set of questions is designed 
to describe any patterns or conditions that impede or enhance a design competi- 
tion by focusing on fiscal responsibility and management practices, and high- 
lighting areas in which NEA assistance might be the most useful. The questions 
thus seek to determine the nature of the planning, the adninistrative 
procedures, and resources available to the competition; to compare what was 
planned and what actually took place; and to ascertain any relationships 
between various of these elements and the projects themselves. 

The second part of this objective addresses publicity. The hypothesis underly- 
ing the second part of the evaluation objective is that the greater the effort 
and resources expended on publicizing the design competition project, the 
greater the public awareness is likely to be. Questions are posed to examine 
numbers of people affected by a publicity technique and the effectiveness of 
the methods. 

Two boundary conditions define the evaluation design: 

o It is assumed that the evaluation design will be most useful to 
the Design Arts Program if it is easy to implement. Thus, existing 

3 



and readily available data sources are used, such as the grantee 
files. These data sources are supplemented with interviews with 
personnel involved in the competitions. 

o The evaluation design focuses on the design competition process 

and sets forth the relationship of various elements of that 

* 

process to the specific goals being assessed. The design does not 
focus on outcomes of either that process or the results of the 
competition (e.g., construction of the winning design). 

The evaluation examines each project funded since 1982 under the Design 
Competition subcategory. The examination provides the framework for drawing 
general conclusions about the management and related aspects of the design 
competition process. The implementation of this design results in three 
principal products: 

o An assessment of the type of management and related practices 
employed by each grantee; 

o An analysis of the extent to which various practices of the 
grantee population are related to other practices; and 

o Indications of the extent to which various practices are related 
to outcomes of the design competition. 

The first analysis describes and categorizes the management practices of each 
grantee; the second and third analyses facilitate generalizations about design 
competitions by providing information as to which variables or combinations of 
variables seem critical to success. 

The evaluation design arrays data by grantee for each question, then aggregates 
the data for all grantees by indicator to allow generalizations about the 
grantees as a group. This is done to ascertain patterns of characteristics 
and to determine significant relationships among indicators. Comparisons were 
made between planned and actual events for individual grantees and in the 
aggregate. 



2 
Because of the formative purpose of the evaluation, the design is non- 
experimental. No control group is used to provide comparative data and 
analysis is restricted to the grantee population itself. Within that 
population, however, the design provides for data comparison at two points -- 
pre-grant and post-grant. This comparison allows the evaluator to control, to 
some extent, for planning or implementing aberrations that would distort the 
general picture. 

The data establish a baseline for the Design Arts Program against which to 
measure subsequent activities, and to analyze it so that program modifications 
can be made as needed. However, which hypotheses are tested and which 
variables are looked at in conjunction with which other variables is determined 
by several arbitrary assumptions that evolve with the examination of the data. 
Thus, for example, the analysis establishes ranges for certain indicators 
(e.g., value of award) which provide an internal frame of reference for 
assessing grantees. Rather than using the individual amount for the value of 
award, for example, which would have resulted in approximately 32 distinct 
amounts, these amounts were inductively grouped together as high, medium, or 
low. This was done to facilitate statistical analyses. 

D. J\E GRANTEE POPULATION 

The original scope of the design included the analysis of all competition 
grantees funded by the subcategory. Access to data available reduced the 
scope to those competitions funded from 1979, and this was further reduced, 
during the actual evaluation process, to those competitions funded from 1982. 
Limitations of the data were the principal constraint: the application form 
changed significantly as to the types of information required, and most of the 
organizations sponsoring competitions had either dispersed or had changed 
personnel so extensively as to make requests for missing pieces of information 
largely futile. 



2/ A formative evaluation is designed to provide data to program managers 
that will allow them to adjust the program as necessary; it does not, 
however, provide data concerning the overall impact of the program. 



As a result of this winnowing process, there were 32 grantees for the total 
population, including 8 charrettes and 24 competitions (See Figure 1). 
Because of the radically different nature of charrettes, which rendered many 
of the management variables inapplicable, they were analyzed separately to 
reinforce their innovative and unique properties, and to avoid penalizing them 
for nonconformity to competition-specific standards. 

E. METHODOLOGY CAVEATS 

There are two principal caveats connected with the statistical analysis of 
this data. The first concerns the data and the second, the use of the 
statistic chi -square. 

Initially, the grantees are required to submit a detailed grant application, 
clearly listing the various budgetary allocations for salaries, supplies, 
travel, permanent equipment, fees, publicity, and prizes. They are also 
required to submit a wide range of other information, including the projected 
number of beneficiaries, descriptions of the management of the competition, 
and a statement of why the funding is requested. There are no such require- 
ments for the Final Descriptive Report (FDR), and the Financial Status Reports 
(FSR) do not provide details on the various components of the budget. The 
evaluation design used was based upon the grant application form, which 
resulted in the definition of several variables under the general heading of 
"Budget." Post-grant data was difficult to identify due to the fact that 
specific variables such as "Fees & Other," "Publicity," and "Prizes" are 
frequently combined under the "Other" category on the FSR. While it is 
possible to determine the amount spent on prizes from an examination of the 
grantee's printed materials, it was only possible to determine the publicity 
actually spent (after the grant had been awarded) in eight cases. All 
grantees were telephoned to collect this information. In some cases, the 
organizing entities no longer existed and, in others, personnel had changed 
drastically or no figures had been kept. In several instances, the amount 
spent on publicity was zero, because the advisor or the advisory board had 
found in-kind donations of materials or space in various media. As the 
evaluation design was set up as a comparative study, the absence of some data 
left gaps in that comparison. 



CHARRETTE 



COMPETITION 



1982:- Association of Collegiate 
Schools of Architecture 

Skowhegan School of Painting 
and Scul pture 

Thibodaux Friends of the 
Library 

Triton Museum of Art 

1983: Institute for Urban Design 
Pilobolus, Inc. 
University of California/ 
Santa Barbara 



1982: Milwaukee County War Memorial , Inc 
San Francisco Friends of the Urban 
Forest 

1983: Boston Redevelopment Authority 
Chandler, Arizona 
Jacob's Pillow Dance Festival 
Minneapolis Society of Fine Arts/ 

Minneapolis College of Art 
New Orleans Museum of Art 
Newport News, Virginia 
The Town scape Institute 
University of California/Berkeley 



1984: St. Paul, Minnesota/Dept. of 
Planning & Economic Develop- 
ment 



1984: Arizona State University 

Association of Student Chapters of AIA 

Escondido, California 

Hillside Trust 

Irwin Sweeny Miller Foundation 

Municipal Arts Society of New York 

National Association of Housing 

and Redevelopment Officials 
Roger Williams College 
University of Florida 
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and 

State University 



1985: Alabama School of Fine Arts Foundation 
Arizona Historical Society 
Oberlin College 
St. Paul , Minnesota 



Figure 1. Design Competition Evaluation Population 



Much of the information relating to publicity was sparse. It was assumed that 
numbers of viewers or attendees would be available, that fairly detailed plans 
would-be made to involve the public in the competitions, and that percentages 
of the number of catalogues sold in relation to the number printed would be 
available. These assumptions were false for almost eyery competition analyzed, 
although it is not to be inferred that these data were not present during the 
competition. This information was, however, unavailable to the Endowment and 
the evaluators. 

What the preceding discussion demonstrates is that the Endowment receives the 
information it requests , and that this information was not completely appropri- 
ate to a comparative study. These circumstances reveal more about the data, 
and Endowment's reporting requirements, than about what actually occurred at 
the design competition. The attention paid by grantees to publicity was 
probably not as sporadic as the data collected would suggest. Revised report- 
ing requirements on the part of the Endowment would greatly enhance the 
confidence with which one could address such issues as the effect that 
publicity has upon the attendance at, or interest in, a design competition. 

As a result of the limitations of the data, several of the planned evaluation 
questions were not answered. These are indicated in the following section, 
"Findings. " 

F. DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES 

Data for this study were collected primarily from the grant files in the Design 
Arts Program. Additional information was provided by the Final Descriptive 
Reports and phone conversations with individual grantees. Materials provided 
as part of the grant application were considered to be "pre-grant", and all 
other information was considered to be "post-grant." The amount and type of 
information provided in the application varied around a constant: all 
applicants were required to complete the Endowment grant application form. 
Additional, descriptive, information was provided at the discretion of the 
applicant, and reflected the degree to which the competition was organized at 
the time of the application: such organization was rarely finalized at that 
time. The post-grant reporting requirements consist of the FDR and FSR, 

8 



and the provision of materials developed as a result of the grant (including 
posters, brochures, catalogues, etc.). Most of the FDRs followed a brief 
narrative format, and summarize overall results of the competition. Since 
there are no explicit reporting requirements, they omit managerial and 
budgetary information. The FSRs are required to show only the project 
expenditures in relation to the amount of the grant, not the specific sums 
disbursed against the proposed budget line items. 

Phone calls were made by Design Arts personnel to determine budgetary data 
which could be extrapolated from available documentation. While this provided 
some further information, the Endowment should establish specific reporting 
requirements if a more detailed monitoring of funds is desired. One recommen- 
dation is that grantees complete a second application form at the end of the 

competition, which would serve two purposes. First, it would provide the 
Endowment with comparable information on all its grantees and, second, it 

would provide the grantees with a familiar form that they could then use to 

compare their plan with its subsequent implementation. 

G. DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES 

The data analysis plan called for the development of a data recording sheet, 
computer entry, statistical tests and analysis of quantitative and quanti- 
tative variables to determine grantee-specific and general patterns and 
procedures. 

The data recording sheet was developed to provide a coherent method of 
collecting, maintaining, updating, and eventually entering on the computer 
information from the grantee files and from interviews with Endowment staff 
and grantee personnel. The data recording sheet was developed through a 
meticulous examination of the evaluation design, and resulted in a series of 
30 variables, broken out in many cases into specificities. For example 
"Budgetary Items" is composed of salaries, supplies, et al . These variables 
were presented in a columnar form: variable name, pre-grant data, | ost-grant 
data and statistical method to be employed. These sheets were then completed 
by ETI and NEA personnel and entered onto the IBM PC using the software 



package STATPAK. For most of the analyses, frequencies were run, as well as 
two by two tables for determining the relationship between pre- and post-grant 
data.' In addition, specific analyses detailed in the evaluation design were 
performed. 

The evaluation design objective examines which of the projects funded by the 
NEA have a high likelihood of being carried out and which enable the public to 
become aware of/participate in the design process. 

This objective can be addressed before any analysis is undertaken. First, all 
competitions funded by Design Arts were carried out. "High likelihood of 
being carried out," therefore, was no longer a valid measure to determine the 
efficiency and effectiveness of the management practices used by the grantees. 
However, the documentation of a wide range of those practices, both planned 
and actual, still existed, as did analyses of their relationships and patterns. 
The analysis of those practices, relationships and patterns was performed as 
the logical extension of the evaluation objective. A preliminary review of 
the second part of the objective (the methods used by the projects which 
enable the public to become aware of/participate in the design process) led to 
another modification of the design. The variables designed to address the 
second part of the objective were examined and compared with the material 
actually present in the grant files. These variables had been developed for 
an analysis of extremely detailed statistics, which were found only rarely in 
the grant materials. Instead, information relating to publicity was presented 
in brief descriptions of what kinds of publicity were used and often included 
exemplars. As a result, the public awareness of/participation in the design 
process could only be inferred, not objectively analyzed. The numbers and 
types of publicity methods were used as proxies to determine the relative 
importance of publicity and the likelihood of public awareness in the design 
competition project. Where the data would allow, these measures were verified 
by determining the actual percentage of publicity as a proportion of the total 
project budget. 

Data was analyzed by frequencies and through the use of cross-tabs, examining 
the relationships between major variables. Their significance was reassessed 



10 



using chi-square to the .05 level of significance. In effect, this statistic 
provides assurance that observed results greater than the expressed value for 
chi-square at those degrees of freedom are derived from a 95 percent probabil- 
ity of an actual relationship, rather than from random chance. 

Chi-square is a statistic used to measure the degree of association between 
two or more variables. In order for chi-square to be treated as a valid and 
reliable indicator, each square of the box (presented below) must contain at 
least five cases. There were only eight charrettes: obviously a total of 
twenty cases is beyond this specific population. In these instances, chi- 
square can be used to demonstrate tendencies, but not actual relationships. 



Variable X 



Variable 


Y 




A 




B 


C 




D 



Significance in relationships is tested with two-by-two tables through the 

development of two hypotheses. The first of these states that the two 

variables being examined are related, and the second, that they are not. If 
the expressed value for chi-square is greater than the table value for those 

degrees of freedom, then the first hypothesis is considered valid and the 

second disproven. This situation is reversed when the expressed value for 
chi-square is less than the tabular one. 

An example of this type of relationship would be a hypothesis that the greater 
the prize, the more likely the competition was to have more entrants, and that 
this relationship would be a direct correlation (higher prize value leads to 
greater number of entrants: both figures increase). 

To a certain extent, the probability that two variables are related can also 
be expressed through the proportionality of the expressed to the stated values 
of chi-square: the closer that proportion approaches the value of one, the 
greater the likelihood that a relationship exists. 



11 



H. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Conclusions derived from the findings are based upon both the statistical 
analyses and qualitative information obtained by reviewing the grantee files, 
and interviewing grantees and NEA personnel. These conclusions, and subsequent 
recommendations, are intended to provide the Endowment with three major 
products. First, the Endowment will have a computerized system for monitoring 
the progress of its grantees (in terms of the comparability of their response 
to stated questions). Second, the Endowment will have descriptions of competi- 
tion grantees from 1982 in terms of their efficacy in implementing their plans. 
Finally, the Endowment will have a statistical description of the types of 
competitions and information requirements which presently appear inter-related, 
and those that have no connection. As a result, the Endowment will be able to 
provide continuing expert assistance to grantees based not only on extensive 
personal knowledge of the competition process, but also on statistical 
evidence. This will reinforce the Endowment's recommendations to ongoing 
competitions on management and their judgnents as to probable degree of success 
of the competition applicant. 



12 



II. ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS 



A. INTRODUCTION 

Evaluation data was collected on each Design Arts Program competition grantee 
from 1982 to 1985. Grantee-specific findings are provided in Appendix A. 
Aggregated analytical statistics for each variable related to competition 
management and publicity at particular levels of significance are provided in 
Appendix B. Dominant patterns in the planning and implementation of competi- 
tions and charrettes are presented and analyzed in this chapter. The purpose 
of this chapter is to provide an overview of the major findings and relation- 
ships among the variables examined in the evaluation research effort. 

The thirty-two grantees studied were divided into two groups: competitions 
and charrettes. This was done when it became apparent that charrettes were 
sufficiently different from "regular" competitions to recommend their separate 
treatment. 

B. EVALUATION OBJECTIVE 

The primary objective of this study was to answer the question: To what extent 
is the Design Arts Program meeting its objectives of funding competitions that 
have a high likelihood of being carried out, and that enable the public to 
become aware of and participate in the design process? 

As stated earlier, all of the funded design competitions had been carried out, 
so that "high likelihood' was rather a moot point. It was not to be discarded, 
however, as the possible hypotheses to account for the causes of such an 
astounding implementation ratio were still of considerable interest. All of 
the funded design competitions were carried out, even one where the problems 
experienced were sufficiently severe to warrant starting all over again from 
scratch. The hypotheses related to implementation are linked to individual 
variables, or groups of variables, which are provided in Table 1. Briefly 



13 



put, the hypotheses state that, since all of the design competitions were 
implemented, characteristics in common affect implementation, and that certain 
characteristics have a stronger effect than others. 

An examination of the types and characteristics of competitions was therefore 
useful in determining the management patterns, practices and problems 
encountered. This description could then be used to provide guidance to 
grantees and competition advisors as to past management efforts and results. 
As design competitions are still relatively new in this country, a sense of 
the types of management efforts which have been undertaken in the past would 
be of some service to others considering their use. 

All grantees were analyzed across several variables. While these changed for 
charrettes, they did so primarily through deletion. These variables and their 
application are presented in the following matrix (Table 1). 

C. DESIGN COMPETITION MANAGEMENT 

1. Management Practices 

Most (81%) of the 32 competition and charrette sponsors submitted grant 
applications to the Endowment prior to the completion of a full implementation 
plan. The importance of the plan is highlighted by fact that the evaluation 
revealed significant differences between planned and actual implementation 

practices. 

« 

The evaluation results suggest that the introduction of a professional advisor 
is the single most important factor in a successfully planned competition. 
Ninety percent (90%) of the competitions and charrettes employed a professional 
advisor, who appears to be the only external source of expertise that directly 
affected the performance of the grantee. Examples of the impact of the 
professional advisor include the following: 

o The number of grantees who developed project performance schedules 
increased by 20% from planned to actual. 



14 



VARIABLE 


COMPETITION 


CHARRETTE 


1. 


Management 


X 


X 


2. 


Funding 


X 


X 


3. 


Budgetary Items 


X 


X 


4. 


Income 


X 


X 


5. 


Other Assurances 


X 


X 


6. 


Types of Competition 


X 


X 


7. 


Amount of Registration Fee 


X 




8. 


Value of Registration Fee 


X 




9. 


Type of Incentive 


X 


X 


10. 


Amount of 1st Place Award 


X 


X 


11. 


Value of 1st Place Award 


X 


X 


12. 


Total Amount of Awards 


X 


X 


13. 


Total Value of Awards 


X 


X 


14. 


Number of Prizes 


X 


X 


15. 


Number of Entrants/Registrants 


X 


X 


16. 


Publicity for Competition 


X 


X 


17. 


Publicity of Resul ts 


X 


X 


18. 


Plans 


X 


X 


19. 


Publicity Percentage 


X 


X 


20. 


Number of Viewers 


X 




21. 


Number of Attendees 




X 


22. 


Types of Publicity 


X 


X 


23. 


Catalogue Sales 


X 


X 


24. 


Community Support 


X 


X 


25. 


Total Competition Cost 


X 


X 


26. 


Total Competition Value 


X 


X 


27. 


Plan to Build 


X 


X 


28. 


Competition Held 


X 


X 


29. 


Grant Type 


X 


X 


30. 


Purpose of Grant 


X 


X 



Table 1. Evaluation Variables 
15 



o Twice as many grantees held question periods than had planned to 
do so. 

o Publicity expenditures decreased due to the use of the professional 
advisor's network of contacts. 

o While only ten competitions had planned to establish procedural 
rules, 23 eventually did so; while only one charrette planned for 
procedural rules, four (b0%) actually employed them. 

Evaluation data indicate that, in general, grantees employed more management 
constraints than they had recognized the need for in their applications. This 
raises the question of whether particular management procedures were identified 
and employed as they became necessary, rather than as part of a pre-established 
management plan; or whether this reflects the influence of the professional 
advisor as a principal catalyst to planning. 

Evaluation research focused on the presence or absence of a professional 
advisor, schedule, testing of project program, question period, procedural 
rules, and problems encountered. 

The variable "Testing of project program" was used primarily in the planning 
stages of a competition, while "Problems encountered" focused on those 
situations that occurred subsequent to Endowment funding. Only three of the 
competitions and charrettes tested their project program. 

Two-thirds of the competitions used all of the following management activities: 
professional advisor, schedule, question period, and procedural rules, while 90 
percent of the competitions used some combination of those activities. Good 
competition management was therefore operationally ae fined as one which demon- 
strated all four of these variables. While 79 percent of the competition 
grantees planned to develop performance schedules, all twenty-four actually 
did so. However, these schedules were only followed (plus or minus one week) 
in three cases, as the time necessary for planning and implementing was 



16 



consistently underestimated. Schedules for charrettes usually consisted of 
setting aside several days in which to hold the event, and were therefore much 
less detailed than those for competitions. 

Although none of the grantees anticipated or planned for problems in their 
application, about 42 percent of the competitions and 25 percent of the 
charrettes did experience some management problems. The greater number of 
competitions experiencing difficulties can be attributed to the size of that 
population and the relative complexity of that process. 

The most common problem encountered was the entrant's interpretation of the 
procedural rules. In some cases there was considerable confusion over the 
site plan, in one, an architect threatened legal action. In an extreme case, 
a resident artist chose to express disapproval of the competition process by 
working on a large metal sculpture during the charrette. In several cases, 
there were substitutions of management personnel or of the value of first 
prize. In only one case were the difficulties sufficiently insurmountable as 
to require returning all the entries and reinitiating the competition process. 
The problem in this case was based on extremely detailed specifications for 
the design (which all of the entrants violated at one point or another), and 
the jury's consensus that the plans submitted did not meet the functional and 
esthetic needs of the building. Because the original design specifications 
were so detailed, the jury recommended that they be reshaped to provide 
specifications which would be detailed enough to give the entrants the basic 
idea of what was required, but not so specific as to limit the design 
possibilities. In addition, the jury recommended that the budget for building 
be increased by $200,000 to further enhance the design possibilities. The 
entrants who had previously submitted designs were given four weeks to modify 
their entries based on the new parameters. 

The evaluation design also sought to identify other assurances or indicators 
that the grantee was committed to holding the competition and meeting all its 
obligations. The most common indicator for competitions and charrettes was 
the provision of land required on which to build the winning entry. This 
varied from allocation of land already held by an existing structure 
(especially in the case of additions to that structure) or the donation 

17 



(usually by the city) of a separate plot of land. Another assurance was the 
guarantee of the availability of certain financial resources, such as the 
expressed intent to use a certain amount of the city budget or of a memorial 
fund for construction purposes. 

Design competition projects are, on the whole, underbudgeted. However, in 
almost e^ery case where additional monies were required, the project sponsor 
was able to raise the necessary supplemental funds. This is demonstrated by 
the differences between planned and actual budgets, which in 63 percent of the 
cases reported increases in monetary contributions. There was no indication 
as to whether these additional sums were provided by the grantee or by contri- 
butions from other sources. 

Table 2 presents the frequency distributions and percentages for each 
management-related variable examined, upon which data the analyses highlighted 
in this section were based. 

2. Funding 

The Design Arts grant application form identifies five potential sources of 
project funds: 

o Monetary contributions 

o In-kind contributions 

o Other grants 

o Federal grants 

o Other revenues 

While all of the grantees obviously had requested and received Federal grants, 
the combination of other funding sources varied greatly. A grantee could 
receive funding from all five sources, or from only one source other than 
Federal grants. Table 3 shows the frequency with which each of the five 
sources was used. 



18 



COMPETITION 



Planned 



Actual 





No. 


Pet. 


PROFESSIONAL ADVISOR 


21 


87.5% 


SCHEDULE 


19 


79.2% 


TESTING PROJECT PROGRAM 


3 


12.5% 


QUESTION PERIOD 


8 


33.3% 


PROCEDURAL RULES 


10 


41.7% 


PROBLEMS 





0.0% 







No. 


Pet. 


22 


91.6% 


24 


100.0% 





0.0% 


17 


70.8% 


23 


95.8% 


10 


41.7% 



TOTAL = 24 



CHARRETTE 



Planned 



Actual 





No. 


Pet. 


PROFESSIONAL ADVISOR 


3 


37.5% 


SCHEDULE 


5 


62.5% 


TESTING PROJECT PROGRAM 





0.0% 


QUESTION PERIOD 


1 


12.5% 


PROCEDURAL RULES 


1 


12.5% 


PROBLEMS 





0.0% 



No. 


Pet. 


7 


87.5% 


7 


87.5% 





0.0% 


2 


25.0% 


4 


50.0% 


2 


25.0% 



TOTAL = 8 



Table 2. Competition Management Activity Data Tables 



19 



Table 3. Frequency of Types of Funding for Competitions 





Planned 


Monetary 


24 


In-Kind 


15 


Other Grants 


8 


Federal Grants 


24 


Other Revenues 


15 



Actual 

23 

8 

8 

24 

15 

Monetary contributions and Federal grants were the most common source of fund- 
ing. In-kind contributions and other grants were the most infrequent sources. 
The frequencies presented on the preceding table are fairly consistent from 
planned to actual. These varied primarily with a shift from in-kind contribu- 
tions to monetary, increasing the dollar amount for that variable. 

The Endowment frequently represented the single largest contributor of project 
funds. However, various other funding sources accounted for at least 50 
percent of the total cost of the project. These figures reveal considerable 
change in the percentage of total project funds secured in addition to the 
Endowment contribution. Initially, all grantees expected to fund between 40 
and 80 percent of the project with non-Endowment funds; in actuality, grantees 
secured from 20 to 90 percent of project funds. The non-Endowment percentage 
of funding varied widely, which demonstrates two processes. The first of 
these relates to the variability between planned and actual figures. The 
Endowment often awards less than the amount requested, while the grantee may 
have reported an optimistic assessment of their actual financial situation. 
This leads to the second process, which is by far the most dynamic. The 
grantee population consists of three major types of organizations: (1) city 
governments; (2) civic or service organizations; and (3) universities. All of 
these must, by their natures, be proficient in fund-raising, and most developed 
the additional resources necessary to supplement the Endowment reductions. 
This fundraising is demonstrated by the fact that the average total amount 
funded varied by only two percent from planned to actual. That process is 
never described: however, it would be interesting to examine it more closely. 



20 



The distribution of the planned and actual funding percentages is presented in 
Table 4. 

Table 4. Frequency of Percentage Funded by Non-Feoeral Sources 



No. 


PI 





7 
4 
7 
4 




anned 


No. 


Actual 



2 
1 
4 
8 
7 
1 
1 




Range (Pet. ) 

0-10 

10-20 

20-30 

30-40 

40-50 

50-60 

60-70 

70-80 

80-90 

90-100 



Charrettes also relied upon monetary contributions and Federal grants as the 
most common sources of funding (Table 5). "Other Revenues" was the least 
frequent source of funding: this is because the variable was primarily 
dependent upon the collection (and utilization) of entry fees, which almost 
none of the charrettes did. The most striking change in category occurred for 
"In-Kind Contributions," which decreased from six cases to one. Four of those 
six shifted the amount to increase the total amount for the monetary category, 
and one did not use that source of funding after all. The percent of funding 
acquired from non-Federal sources by charrettes did not vary greatly: the 
ranges were identical, and the means varied by only five percent. This 
implies that the levels of funding of charrettes were much more stable than 
those of competitions and may be due to the lower total cost of a charrette in 
relation to that of a competition. The goal of an overall lower level of 
funding was more attainable than that of a higher one and thus required less 
additional effort from the grantee. 



21 



Table 5. Frequency of Types of Funding for Charrettes 



Planned Actual 

Monetary 6 7 

In-Kind 6 1 

Other Grants 6 5 

Federal Grants 8 8 

Other Revenues 2 2 

Every grantee, both charrette and competition, provided documentation on finan- 
cial support, and a budget in its plan. All grantees except four honored the 
commitments made. In two cases, the results are not yet in from the 
competi tion/charrette, so that determination could not be made. However, in 
two of the 32 cases, problems did develop that resulted in commitments not 
being honored. In one case, the architect who won the competition was not 
remunerated as agreed. In the other case, the professional advisor was not 
paid as agreed. Both of these situations have since been resolved. 

Budgetary categories examined included: 

o Salaries, wages and fringes 

o Supplies and materials 

o Travel 

o Permanent equipment 

o Fees and other 

o Publicity 

o Prizes/ awards. 

Each of these categories was evaluated in two ways: (1) by detecting its 
presence/ absence (with the intent to discern particular patterns which occurred 
as well as simple frequencies o1 each variable), and (2) by identifying cases 
where the actual expenditures deviated from the planned amounts by at least 
ten percent. 



22 



One of the principal data collection difficulties surfaced with these analyses 
aue, primarily, to the inconsistency of the grantee reporting requirements and 
formats. For example, budget information on the application form distinguishes 
between fees and other, publicity, and prizes/awards. The FSR, however, com- 
bines these three categories under the heading "Fees and other." While the 
amount allocated for prizes could be abstracted from descriptive reports pro- 
vided by the grantees, publicity expenditures could only be identified for one 
quarter of the 32 cases, despite extensive efforts to retrieve that data 
through personal telephone inquiries. 

Deviances between planned and actual budgets of more than ten percent were 
used as indicators of problem areas. This was found for the total budgets of 
the competitions in seven of the twenty -four cases. Most of these were 
budgeted for less than the actual cost of the competition. 

Budget figures for each category except supplies and materials, permanent 
equipment, and publicity were available for more than 90 percent of the 
competitions. Salaries, wages, and fringes were often planned, and sometimes 
realized, as part of the in-kind contribution, since the staff time allocated 
to prepare for the competition was already a part of the grantee budget. In 
some instances, it seems likely that this consideration was used to augment 
the percentage of funding contributed by the grantee. Supplies and materials 
decreased 69 percent of the time from the planned to the actual figures. This 
decrease may represent the presence of additional donations not explicitly 
listed or the decision to shift funds to another category. This latter 
possibility could occur if the grantee defined the cost of the paper or 
drafting supplies necessary for the competition as supplies and materials. 
These supplies might then be provided from the grantee's own stock, with the 
amount allocated being used for another purpose. 

Publicity and Fees and Other were the two categories where the grantees experi- 
enced the greatest deviation. Other categories thrt frequently deviated from 
planned budgets were Supplies and Materials, which tended to decrease, and 
Prizes/Awards, which tended to exceed the planned budget. 



23 



The increase in the amount budgeted for prizes and awards may be a result of 
an increase in the number of prizes, as well as the identification of a value 
for the first place award, which was missing in many of the applications. 

Permanent equipment was budgeted for only one competition. In most cases, it 
seems reasonable to assume that any office or artistic equipment necessary to 
plan/implement the competition was already owned by the grantee. 

Charrettes were more likely to conform to their total budgets, and variations 
which did occur stemmed primarily from discrepancies concerning the costs of 
publicity. This may again be due to the attainability of their lesser 
budgeted costs. 

3. Budget and Cost 

Despite the fact that the range of the total cost for competitions varied 
considerably (planned was $285,000, while actual was $425,000), the means of 
each were within $7,000 of each other, and fell in the $70, 000-$l 50,000 range. 
Total cost of the competition was the most unstable variable; it changed in 
almost 50 percent of the cases. Changes were divided equally, however, 
between increases and decreases in overall amounts, as shown on Table 6. 

Table 6. Planned and Actual Total Costs of Competitions 

Planned Actual 

No. 
Less than $70,000 9 

$70,000 - $150,000 8 

Greater than $150,000 7 

Planned versus actual total costs (both ranges and means) of charrettes also 
varied greatly from planned to actual, decreasing by at least 30 percent. This 
finding is interesting as three-fourths of the charrettes altered this varia- 
ble. One half of the charrettes (50%) fell into the $31 ,000-$60,000 range, 



24 



Pet. 


No. 


Pet 


38% 


8 


33% 


33% 


10 


42% 


29% 


6 


25% 



with three of the remaining four costing more than $60,000. Charrettes tended 
to cost as much as the least expensive competition. While the total cost of a 
charrette changed from planned to actual, and deviated by more than 10%, the 
net levels of increases and decreases to the amounts budgeted did not affect 
the overall distribution in their funding levels. The reason for the decreases 
in range and mean can be attributed in part to the budget for the Skowhegan 
School, which decreased by 500 percent. 

Table 7. Planned and Actual Total Costs of Charrettes 

Planned Actual 





No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet 


Less than $30,000 


1 


13% 


1 


13% 


$30,000 - $60,000 


4 


50% 


4 


50% 


Greater than $60,000 


3 


38% 


3 


38% 



D. DESIGN COMPETITION IMPLEMENTATION 



1 . Typology 



Competition typology was examined through the use of two variables: structure 
and area of design concern. It was hypothesized that the type of competition 
planned and/ or carried out would be a principal determinant in the overall 
response to the competition. 

a. Structure 

Five structural types of design competitions are funded by the Endowment: 

o Open one-stage 

o Open two-stage 

o Restricted 

o Restricted on-site charrette 

o Invited. 



25 



Over forty percent of the 32 grantees conducted open one-stage competitions. 
Open two-stage competitions and charrettes each accounted for 25 percent. 

The statistics indicate that a significant relationship exists between the 
planned structure and the value of first prize. This is intriguing because 
even though the organization of the competition is linked with the amount of 
the prize, this relationship does not also exist for the actual structure of 
the competition, despite the stability of the planned to actual correspondence. 
This finding indicates that the first prize value may have changed. The "Value 
of First Place Award" variable will be discussed in the Incentives section of 
this report, but the primary reason that significance no longer existed can be 
traced to the increase in reported values for that variable, especially for 
the highest category. 

Approaching significance were the relationships between actual structure and 
the number of entrants and ranked fee. This echoes a hypothesis which formed 
part of the evaluation plan: that the number of entrants might be linked to 
the type of competition and the amount of the entry fee. In effect, the fact 
that these two variables produced values approaching significance together 
with the actual structure of the competition, suggests that there are linkages 
which could be deliberately strengthened or weakened through particular 
management strategies. Open one-stage competitions with mid-level fees 
attracted the greatest number of entrants, who were usually attracted by the 
value of prizes offered or, perhaps, by an intangible such as the prestige of 
the grantee. The grantee management can therefore direct the type and number 
of entrants by choosing a different structure (for example, restricted or 
invited competitions strictly limit who competes, while an open two-stage 
competition allows a broader range of participants, but maintains a great deal 
of control at the second stage over which designs are actually considered) and 
fee requirements. 

b. Area of Design Concern 

The area of design concern determined the overall purpose of the competition, 
and was analyzed through three variables: idea, plan, and project. An idea 
competition was one in which any type of solution to a problem or a situation 

26 



was acceptable. A plan competition called for an actual architectural render- 
ing of a building or landscape solution but was not intended to be constructed. 
A project competition, on the other hand, required the development of an 
architectural plan and was intended to serve as the blueprint for subsequent 
construction or renovation. 

Project competitions accounted for over seventy percent of the competitions, 
followed by plan competitions. Idea competitions were rare. Only two 
competitions changed their area of design concern. Significance was determined 
for planned by actual area of design concern, and for planned area by total 
value of awards. The first case is due to the stability of this variable, and 
the second is linked to the preponderance of projects as an area of design 
concern. The fact that this relationship did not continue through implementa- 
tion, is caused by the effects of changes in the value of the first place 
award, which was included in the total value of awards. 

Table 8. Competition Area of Design Concerns 

Planned Actual 





No. 


Pet. 


No. Pet 


Idea 


2 


8% 


1 4% 


Plan 


5 


21% 


6 25% 


Project 


15 


63% 


17 71% 


Missing 


2 


8% 






Analysis of planned area by total value of awards is revealing. This relation- 
ship did not continue through the actual area of design concern, which 
indicates that the planned and actual total value of the competitions vary 
markedly, as will be discussed in the next section of this report. The 
planned value for the total awards was distinctly lower than the one realized. 
This variable is also biased, as almost three out of every four cases were 
directed towards projects. This in turn reflects the purpose of the competi- 
tions: they were intended to provide an architect for a specific function, 
and not for the interest and excitement of the competition alone. 



27 



Planned and actual area of design concern both approach significance with 
regard to the number of entrants: projects tend to attract higher numbers 
than -other areas of design concern. This is probably related both to the end 
product and to the reward. Not only is the monetary value of the prize 
greater, but there are also intangible awards which accompany the cash prize. 
These derive primarily from two sources: the first is the sense of winning 
something concrete (the chance to design and build something), and the second 
is the prestige of having designed something which can be seen and evaluated 
by both one's peers and the public. 

Charrettes are fairly evenly divided between plans and projects. Only one 
charrette changed its area of design concern: from idea to plan. This 
reinforces the stability of this variable, and reflects the practical concerns 
of limiting the design teams to creating something that can be judged 
comparatively. An idea charrette would be extremely difficult to implement, 
let alone eval uate. 

Table 9. Charrette Area of Design Concerns 

Planned Actual 





No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet 


Idea 


1 


13% 







Plan 


3 


38% 


4 


50% 


Project 


4 


50% 


4 


50% 



Actual area of design concern by number of entrants reinforces the theory that 
projects tend to attract more entrants. The fact that this relationship still 
emerges as approaching significance for a variable as strictly limited as the 
number of entrants at a charrette, indicates that the area of design concern 
may be of more importance than others in attracting entrants. 

This attraction may also be due to the value of the first prize, which is the 

second variable approaching significance. As many charrettes have only the 

single cash award, this figure becomes more important for these competitions 

than for competitions as a whole, reflecting the overall motivation for 

entering the charrette. 

28 



2. Incentives 

This .section includes findings for the variables termed approach, incentive, 
number of prizes, value of first prize, and total value of the awards. 

Three types of awards were offered by design competition grantees: 

o Prize 

o Commission 

o Prize plus commission. 

Fifty percent of the grantees provided a prize plus commission to the winner 
of the competition. Charrette winners, in contrast, were most frequently 
awarded a prize alone (50%). Grantees were ^ery stable in implementing what 
was planned. Those competitions which changed the planned award tended to 
include a commission as part of the final incentive. Grantees were consistent, 
on the whole, in providing the award as planned. In only one case was the cash 
prize withheld, and this was due to the entrant's nonconformity with competi- 
tion standards for presentation. The design, however, was still awsraed first 
place, and was used to plan the construction. 

Table 10. Incentives for Competitions and Charrettes 







Competitions 






Charrettes 




Planned 


Actual 


Planned 


Actual 


Prize 


9 


38% 


8 


33% 


4 


50% 


4 50% 


Commission 


3 


13% 


4 


17% 


1 


13% 


1 13% 


Prize plus 


9 


38% 


12 


50% 


3 


38% 


3 38% 


Commission 
















Missing 


3 


13% 





0% 


-- 




-- 



Approach and incentive are closely allied, and both determined some Signifi- 
cance for the type of award with the number of entrants: the higher the value 
(particularly of the first prize) the greater the number of people competing 
for it. 



29 



The type of award is closely linked with the number of entrants, as was the 
area of design concern. As with that latter variable, the grantee should be 
able .to use the various incentives, together with their purpose in holding the 
competition, as a guide to forecasting the number of entrants (as well as 
registrants). The consideration of these factors may provide some additional 
parameters for determining the budget. 

The range of planned and actual prizes was from 1 to 26. The mean of planned 
to actual prizes increased substantially for competitions due to the inclusion 
of honorable mentions or other non-monetary awards, often during the actual 
judging. 

In charrettes either one prize was awarded to the winner or a cash award was 
distributed equally among all entrants. The manner of awarding prizes varied 
directly with the type of competition held: plans awarded equal prizes, and 
projects a unique one. 

The range of planned and actual amounts of first place awards was from $400 to 
$30,000. The mean value of planned prizes for competitions was $7,000; while 
the mean value of actual prizes awarded was $12,000. This difference can be 
attributed primarily to the high percentage of missing values for the planned 
first place award, as only four competitions changed the value of first place, 
two increasing it, and two decreasing it. 

Table 11. Value of First Prize for Competitions 



Planned Actual 





No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet 


Less than $5,000 


4 


24% 


5 


21% 


$5,000 to $20,000 


10 


59% 


12 


50% 


Greater than $20,000 


3 


18% 


7 


29% 


Missing 


7 


- 





- 



30 



Data on charrettes lacked planned amounts for first prize in 50 percent of the 
cases, which explains the following differences. The planned range was from 
$2,00.0 to $5,000 while the actual range was from to $5,000. The planned 
mean was $1,800, while the actual mean was $2,600. No significant or 
near-significant relationships were determined for this variable, which is 
most likely due to the very limited population. 

Table 12. Value of First Prize for Charrettes 

Planned Actual 





No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet 


Less than $3,000 


2 


50% 


4 


50% 


$3,000 to $5,000 





- 


2 


25% 


Greater than $5,000 


2 


50% 


2 


25% 


Missing 


4 


- 





- 



While the ranges of planned and actual amounts for the total value of awards 
for competitions were both from $4,000 to $100,000, the mean of planned 
amounts was $19,000, and the mean of actual amounts was $30,000. Total value 
of the award increased from planned to actual. 

The only analysis which demonstrated a significant relationship was planned 
versus actual, while analysis of the actual total prize value by the number of 
entrants approached significance. This latter was directed so that the 
greater total value of the awards attracted the greatest number of entrants. 

The most and least popular types of competitions and charrettes are summarized 
below: 

o Most Popular 

— Competitions 

Structure: Open One-Stage 



31 



Area of Design Concern: Project 
Incentive: Prize plus Commission 



— Charrettes 

Structure: Restricted On-Site Charrette 

Area of Design Concern: Plan/Project (50-50 tie) 

Incentive: Prize 

o Least Popular 

— Competitions 

Structure: Restricted 

Area of Design Concern: Idea 

Incentive: Commission 

--Charrettes 

Structure: — 

Area of Design Concern: Idea (none) 

Incentive: Commission 

The evaluation effort can not, however, attribute these results to any one 
cause. For example, the fact that competition grantees most frequently 
conducted open one-stage project competitions, and offered both a prize and a 
commission for the winning entry, may be attributable to: 

o Pre-appli cation guidance to potential applicants provided by 
Endowment staff or others experienced in the field; 

o Design Competition Panel preferences; 

o Applicant/ competition sponsor preferences; 

o Any combination of the above, or other influences. 

32 



3. Participation 

The variables considered in this section include the fees charged for partici- 
pation, the population which entered the competitions, and the amounts and 
types of publicity used, first, to attract them and, second, to disseminate 
their resul ts. 

The registration fee is defined as the actual monetary sum required to enter a 
competition: charrettes did not usually require a registration fee. A fee 
often provided additional revenue for the competition. 

The number of entries submitted in a competition is directly related to the 
amount of the registration fee. The actual amount of competition registration 
fees ranged from no charge to $85.00, with a mean of $37.00. The mean of 
planned fees was $28.00. Thirteen (13) competitions did not change the fee 
charged from the planned amount; however, of the remaining ten competitions 
which charged fees, eight increased the fee from the planned amount. The 
greatest number of competitors entered when the fee was in the middle range 
($3b-$55). 

Table 13. Distribution of Competition Fees 



Planned 



Actual 





No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet 


Less than $35 


9 


38% 


9 


38% 


$35 - $55 


9 


38% 


8 


33% 


Greater than $55 


2 


8% 


6 


25% 


Missing 


4 


17% 


1 


4% 



Attempts were made to determine the number of registrants attracted by each 
funded competition, however there was insufficient data to allow any valuable 
analyses. Instead, grantee reports on the numbers of actual entrants were 
analyzed. 



33 



The number of entries in open competitions is related to several other 
factors, including awards offered and registration fee. Analyses revealed a 
relationship between the numbers of people who entered a competition based on 
a certain range for the registration fee, and a direct ascending correlation 
between the numbers of people entered and the value and kinds of prizes 
offered. 

Three interesting statistical findings were found for competitions: 

o The range of entries was from 5 to 340; 

o The average number of entries was 115; 

o The mode, or the most common number of entries, was 13 and 20. 

Analyses of charrette entries revealed: 

o 75 percent of the charrettes had five or fewer entries; 
o The range of entries was from 3 to 10; 
o The average number of entries was 5. 

Charrettes were intended to be small, intensive processes. While few explicit- 
ly planned the number of entrants, it appeared that most used the least number 
of people. This may also have been due to the policy of providing equal 
honoraria for all teams: the number of teams then possible would be limited by 
the amount budgeted for awards. 

The types of pre-competi tion publicity that were described and/ or provided by 
the grantee for both the planned and actual phases of the competition process 
were examined. The types of publicity analyzed were: 

o General Print 

o Professional Print 

o Electronic Media 

o Flyers 

o Posters 

o Other. 



34 



The percentages of publicity types used by competitions reflect the individual 
treatment of each type. This was done to show frequency as part of the larger 
entity, and to not discriminate against those competitions that used different 
publicity techniques. In other words, a design competition might have used 
only one or two of the publicity types, while another competition might have 
used three or four. The different combinations of types, as well as the 
prevalence of particular types, were used to ascertain what effect publicity 
might have had on the design competition process. 

The most common method used to publicize the competition was general print. 
Once the grant funds were awarded, posters were frequently used, followed, to 
a lesser extent, by professional print and flyers. The differences between 
planned and actual methods are distinctive and reveal the importance of the 
Endowment's funding and the process of implementation, which includes the 
contributions of the professional advisor. 

Clippings or samples of materials used were generally included in the grant 
file. Where samples could not be included (for example, a film clip used on a 
local broadcast), these were either (1) referred to in the text of the final 
report or (2) not mentioned at all. The former was rare and may account for 
the low percentage of electronic media and the high percentage of general print 
(i.e., newspaper clippings). The lack of specificity and of informational 
criteria in the Final Descriptive Reports lend credence to this hypothesis. 

Table 14. Publicity for Competitions 

Planned Actual 







No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet 


General 


Print 


11 


46% 


14 


58% 


Profess: 


ional Print 


8 


33% 


13 


54% 


Electronic Media 


5 


21% 


2 


8% 


Flyers 




1 


4% 


12 


50% 


Posters 




1 


4% 


12 


71% 


Other 




3 


13% 


4 


17% 


Missing 




8 


33% 


1 


4% 



35 



Each of the various types of publicity used for charrettes (as with competi- 
tions) is treated as a separate sub- variable to show frequency as part of the 
largest entity, and to not discriminate against those charrettes which used 
differing publicity techniques. Most charrettes did not plan publicity before 
the grant award: once it was awarded, however, the most common technique used 
was general print, followed by flyers. 

Table 15. Publicity for Charrettes 



Planned 



Actual 







No. 


Pet 


General 


Print 


1 


13% 


Professional Print 


2 


25% 


Electronic Media 





- 


Flyers 







- 


Posters 







- 


Other 




2 


25% 


Missing 




4 


50% 



0. 


Pet. 


7 


88% 


3 


38% 


2 


25% 


4 


50% 


2 


25% 


3 


38% 


1 


13% 



This variable assessed the types of post-competition publicity that were 
described/provided by the grantee for both the planned and actual phases of 
the competition. The types of publicity used in disseminating the results are 
identical to those used in publicizing the competition, that is: general 
print, professional print, electronic media, flyers, posters, and others. 

As with the publicity for competitions, each of these individual types is 
treated as a sub-variable for the charrettes: the percentages are divided by 
the total number of competitions. This was done to indicate the individual 
strengths of these publicity types, and not to discriminate against those 
competitions that used different combinations of variables. 

Most competitions did not plan for publicity on the results of the event. 
Three-fourths of the competitions did, however, publicize the results via 
general print, followed by professional print. 



36 



Half of the charrettes did not plan for publicity on the results of the compe- 
tition. Charrettes did publicize the results of the competition, however: 
fifty percent or more used some combination of general print, professional 
print and electronic media. 

Table 16. Publicity of Results for Competitions and Charrettes 







Compe 


tit ions 






Charrettes 






Planned 


Actual 


PI 


anned 


Actual 




No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet. 


General Print 


7 


30% 


18 


75% 


2 


25% 


5 


63% 


Professional Print 


3 


13% 


16 


67% 


1 


13% 


4 


50% 


Electronic Media 


4 


17% 


4 


17% 


1 


13% 


4 


50% 


Flyers 





- 


2 


8% 





- 


3 


38% 


Posters 


1 


4% 


3 


13% 





- 





- 


Other 


4 


17% 


9 


38% 


1 


13% 


3 


38% 


Missing 


15 


63% 


3 


13% 


4 


50% 


1 


13% 



Design competitions sometimes used another activity together with the publicity 
measures. Sixty-three (63) percent of the design competitions used a submis- 
sion exhibit as part of the judging process. In the case of charrettes, these 
often took the form of an open house held during specific hours during the 
design process. Charrette attendance varied from 450 to an estimated 5000, 
but actual numbers were never collected or described systematically. 

The amount and value spent on publicity varied considerably among grantees. 
Amount referred to the actual dollars spent, while value was a ranked sequence 
of percentages. These percentages reflected the amount spent on publicity as 
a part of the total cost of the competition. In many cases, this was not 
directly spent as budgeted: the professional advisor frequently had contacts 
who provided no-cost advertising, or local businesses donated time or merchan- 
dise. Examples of this include space in the local newspapers, coverage in 
other local media, and graphic materials (as a business contribution). 
However, publicity was not, in general, a major component of a design competi- 
tion's budget. 

37 



Planned publicity for competitions accounted for under a tenth of the total 
cost of the projects in almost half of the cases. Actual publicity expendi- 
tures were not analyzed because only a third of the cases reported actual 
values. 

Variables approaching significance were planned and actual publicity expendi- 
tures by the numbers of types of publicity used. This analysis proauces a 
fairly linear relationship: as more money is spent, more types of publicity 
can be purchased. 

Planned publicity for charrettes accounted for under four percent of the total 
cost of the projects for half of the charrettes and under 10 percent in all 
cases. Actual publicity expenditures were not analyzed due to insufficient 
data. 

Table 17. Percentages Budgeted for Publicity 



Competitions 
Planned Actual 



Charrettes 
Planned Actual 



No. 
Less than 10% 11 
10% to 20% 6 

Greater than 20% 4 
Missing 3 



Pet. 


No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet 


46% 


5 


21% 


Less than 4% 4 


50% 


2 


25% 


25% 


3 


13% 


Greater than 4% 2 


25% 


1 


13% 


17% 


- 


- 


Missing 2 


25% 


5 


63% 


13% 


16 


75% 











Examination of the types of evident community support is an indicator of local 
interest and participation in the competitions and charrettes. This indicator 
was divided into six variables: 

o Community Groups 

o Public Officials 

o Private Businesses/Groups 

o Citizen Advisory Boards 

o Citizens Input 

o Case by Case. 



38 



These variables referred only to the planning stages of the competitions and 
charrettes, and were in the form of letters of support that accompanied the 
appl i cation. 

The most common types of support for competitions were from community groups, 
public officials, and private businesses/groups, while private businesses/ 
groups provided the most common source of support for charrettes. 

Table 18. Community Support for Competitions and Charrettes 







Competition 


Charrette 






No. 


Pet. 


No. 


Pet 


Community Groups 




19 


79% 


3 


38% 


Public Officials 




17 


71% 


4 


50% 


Private Businesses/Groups 


17 


71% 


7 


88% 


Citizen Advisory 


Boards 


10 


42% 





- 


Citizen Input 




7 


29% 


4 


50% 


Case by Case 




1 


4% 





- 


Missing 




1 


4% 


1 


13% 



The data clearly show that neither competitions nor charrettes visibly demon- 
strated much effort to publicize either the competition process or its 
results. Whether this is due to the current reporting requirements, or 
whether it is, instead, reflective of an actual situation cannot be determined 
from this study. The importance of the publicity variables can be clarified 
by two points. The first is that the most common types of publicity mentioned 
for both competitions and charrettes were general and professional print. The 
former type was used to announce the competitions and their results to the 
community. The latter type served to advertise the competition among the 
population most likely to compete, and then to distribute the results of the 
process to the most knowledgeable and responsive audience. The second point 
is the relative disincentive for community participation: letters were 
written and citizens served on some juries, but the competition always seemed 
to reflect a much smaller part of the community as a whole. 



39 



III. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 



This final section presents the conclusions and recommendations drawn from the 
analysis of findings and the review of the grant files. In most cases, the 
conclusions and recommendations are grouped together under a specific 
finding: this is what the data mean, and this is what might be done to alter 
that situation. 

The last two sections deal solely with recommendations concerning the applica- 
tion process and chiefly relate to two areas: the reporting requirements and 
the use that is made of the applications, as well as their potential as a 
management tool for the Endowment. 

Grant applications present an incomplete implementation plan . 

Most of the applications demonstrated yery little pre-grant preparation for the 
proposed competition or charrette, and yet most of the competitions and char- 
rettes were implemented without major problems. However, analysis across 
variables illustrates enormous differences between planned and actual status. 

The competition advisor is a key factor in successful implementation . 

It would appear that the introduction of the professional advisor is the single 
most important factor to the overall success of the project, as that provides 
the only consistent external source of expertise which directly affects the 
performance of the grantee. For most of the grantees, the problems connected 
with the lack of planning were resolved with the provision of an outside 
expert. A publication on what a competition/ charrette entails, the types of 
procedures most commonly followed and what their effect is, would be a useful 
preparatory guide at the application stage. 

Grantees are capable of raising funds to augment Endowment contribution . 

The grantees appeared to be capable of raising the funds necessary for the 
competitions: while the Endowment was often the largest single contributor, 

40 



the fact that other funding sources available to the grantee accounted for at 
least 50 percent of the total cost indicates three things. First, it demon- 
strates the grantee's commitment to this type of design process. Second, it 
indicates the community support available for the competition through the 
breadth and depth of the contributions. Communities were willing to support a 
competition process to find an acceptable design, especially for a new building 
or an addition to an existing one. Third, it reveals that the lack of pre- 
grant planning for the competition is more probably reflective of the grantee's 
lack of information related to specific procedures and tasks which that design 
process entails: a more traditional fund-raising leading to the building 
process was manifestly already established in-house. 

Problems resulted due to inexperienced management . 

Problems arising from each of the management activities were due to inexper- 
ience in using a relatively new process. Grantees should be encouraged to 
undertake more thorough research of the design competition process and 
necessary procedures. The delays in scheduling may also stem from not knowing 
approximately how long specific tasks would take: while there is no need to 
have all the details of the competition or charrette established before the 
process begins, it seems logical to provide some time estimates (as opposed to 
actual dates) as to how long specific tasks would require. The former method 
allows for much greater flexibility in terms of adhering to a schedule without 
needing to fix a calendar date. The time factor was chronically underestimated 
by the grantees and then corrected (one assumes) either by a professional 
advisor or during actual implementation. 

Architectural background of grantees hindered competition design . 

The problems encountered during the competition process are particularly inter- 
esting in regard to the discrepancies in details of the plan. The criteria 
initially established by a grantee indicated a distinct lack of architectural/ 
planning expertise. These discrepancies became apparent from the types of 
questions entrants asked, when, for example, design requirements did not fit 
in the space allotted. This type of error was the only source of probl 



41 



ems 



severe enough to warrant cancelling the entire process and starting all over 
again. In almost eyery case the professional advisor answered entrants' 
questions, and, where necessary, revised the original criteria. 

Composition of the jury is a key element in the decision process . 

An important element of any competition, that this evaluation did not address, 
is the composition of the jury. There are two principal points of interest 
which have emerged from working with the grantee files. The first is that the 
composition of the jury strongly affects the type of design chosen: where the 
jury is composed entirely of design professionals, the school represented by 
the majority will tend to sway the rest. Where the jury is composed of design 
professionals and local citizens with limited or no design expertise, the 
translation of the design plans into concrete examples (in effect, a selling 
job, pointing out the various strong points of the design) was an unexpected 
but useful outcome. This provided a clearer understanding of the design for 
both the professionals and the community participants, and permitted a more 
informed decision with regards to the design and its purpose in the community. 
The second point of interest is the relative power of that jury decision: 
additional prizes could be awarded or cash prizes withheld at its discretion. 
An analysis of this variable might prove both interesting and valuable to 
future competition sponsors. 

The competition process is underbudgeted in the application . 

Another principal conclusion of the evaluation is that the projects are, on 
the whole, underbudgeted: this again reflects the grantees' inexperience with 
the mechanics of holding a design competition. In almost e^ery case where 
additional funding was required, however, it was obtained. The Endowment may 
wish to establish specific reporting requirements for budgetary information: 
these would provide a means with which to monitor expenditures that are 
subject to the greatest discrepancies. 



42 



Value of prize and type of competition are the strongest variables in 
assessing the competition process . 

Those analyses which demonstrated significance present a composite picture of 
relationships, particularly connected with the type of competition and (1) the 
number of entrants, (2) the value of first prize, (3) the total value of both 
the awards, (4) the competition as a whole, and, (5) for competitions, the 
particular value of the entrance fee. 

The greater the prize, the higher the number of entrants and the more they are 
willing to pay for the privilege of competing. The structure of the competi- 
tion is less important than the type of compensation, which is, in turn, close- 
ly tied to the area of design concern. In other words, a commission is more 
likely to be part of a project than either a plan or an idea competition. 
Prizes were used as additional incentives when linked with projects, and they 
were more likely to be used as the only incentive when there was no chance of 
the winning design being built. Many of the competitions which did not 
include commissions were student-oriented. 

What is interesting in these instances of significance is the difference 
between the planned and the actual variables. When, for example, the planned 
area of design concern was determined to be significant with regard to the 
total value of awards, it was the shift in value of the total value of awards 
wtiich caused that difference. In several cases, the change was due to a 
decrease in the total value of the awards. No explanation was provided: a 
more detailed reporting requirement might reveal the grantees' rationale for 
such a shift. An analysis of those reasons might confirm tentative relation- 
ships established in this report. 

The use of publicity is not well planned . 

The publicity variables proved to be the most disappointing: the lack of 
reporting and of planning indicate that publicity was not used effectively. 
The lack of publicity is peculiar, especially when viewed in relation to 
demonstrated abilities at fund-raising. There were a number of avenues which 



43 



were never used in terms of expanding the local coverage: perhaps this is 
because the full details were not recorded, or perhaps it is because those 
techniques were simply not used. The most common technique used by both 
competitions and charrettes was general print: many of these competitions were 
held under the aegis of an academic institution which would not be limited to 
a sole means of community outreach. Many held submission exhibits: how did 
the public find out about these events in their community, what mechanisms 
were used to foster their involvement? Judging from the results, they read 
about it in newspapers, and not through more immediate media (e.g., radio and 
television). While most charrettes included members of the community on the 
panel of judges, many of the competitions did not. 

The conclusion concerning the management and publicity activities connected 
with both these types of competitions is that they were not yery well planned. 
Although the management activities were well implemented, the importance of 
publicity as a means of fostering interest in competitions appears to be 
ignored. 

Revisions to the data reporting requirements may be appropriate . 

The Endowment presently receives a detailed grant application form, narrative 
summaries of the final results of competitions, and ongoing status reports 
relating to the disbursement and use of Endowment funds. Because there are no 
standards for the information required in the final reports, there is only 
minimal comparability between the planning and the implementation stages. 
Comparable and more detailed information could be collected in a number of 
ways, including: 

o Require each grantee to complete a second application form when 
the competition is over. This would provide both the grantee and 
the Endowment with a management tool, using a form with which both 
the grantee and the Endowment are familiar, and which has already 
been approved by 0Mb. 



44 



o Require the professional advisor to write the FDR, describing in 
detail the types of management activities undertaken, especially 
with regard to the type of competition held: why a particular 
activity or approach was chosen. 

o Require closer monitoring of grantees: progress reports listing 
problems or describing the development of particular activities 
could be submitted as the narrative accompaniment to payment 
requests. Grantees could follow the application format to 
indicate progress, problems, and/ or changes in their original 
estimates. 

Management strategies for the use of grant applications . 

There does not appear to be any use made of the grantee files. It is antici- 
pated that the system used by this evaluation might serve the Endowment as a 
means to monitor the progress of each grantee. In addition, the Endowment 
might consider taking the following steps: 

o Some grantees submitted a management time line with their 
applications. The analogous tool for the Endowment would be a 
time by task matrix: the time taken to implement each facet of a 
competition (especially when compared with the estimated time) 
might be exceptionally revealing in terms of problem identifi- 
cation. 

o Benchmark indicators, developed from this study, might be used to 
evaluate the grantee applications. 

o Additional studies could be performed on the grantees: in particu- 
lar, regional variations, the overall effects of professional 
advisors, the perceived effect of the competition on the grantee 
and on the community, improvements in competition planning and 
implementation, and the use of precise and detailed case stuay 
analyses of competitions perceived by the Endowment as 'good' or 
'bad' all merit further attention. 

45 



APPENDIX A: 



Descriptive Data by Evaluation 
Variable for Each Grantee 



APPENDIX B: 



Competition and Charrette Crosstabs 



APPENDIX A: 



Descriptive Data by Evaluation 
Variable for Each Grantee 



APPENDIX A: A USER'S GUIDE 

This Appendix provides all of the coded data for each of the thirty-two 
grantees. It is arranged so that competitions are presented in their entirety, 
followed by charrettes. While the initial format may appear forbidding and 
confusing, the following instructions will demonstrate that it is neither, and 
that, in fact, its incorporation into the evaluation report makes the various 
statistical calculations, tables and charts more comprehensible because of the 
individual focus of this Appendix. 

Each grantee is listed, together with the grant number, on the left hand side 
of the table. A series of alphabets are listed on the horizontal axis. The 
series begins from A to Z and goes on through AA to AZ, all the way through EB. 
Each of these alphabets is provided with a key, which immediately precedes the 
table it references. It therefore becomes a matter of identifying either a 
variable one wants to examine more closely or a grantee whose performance one 
wants to assess. 

In the first case, we will use the variables Planned Flyers (CO) and Actual 
Flyers (CP) for the Publicity of Results for Competitions, as we are interested 
in the overall total of each and the changes from the planned to the actual 
variables. The table on the following pages lists only one case for planned 
flyers and only one for actual flyers. They are also not from the same 
grantee, which demonstrates a certain variation from Planned to Actual. 

In the second case, we want to look at the Skowhegan School's publicity 
usage. To do this we might first draw a line under that grantee's data for 
all of the variables, as a way of training the eyes to reference the 
information. Then we need to find the range of variables which deal with 
publicity. These go from BW (Planned General Print for the Publicity of the 
Competition) through DJ (Actual Numbers of Types of Publicity). The Skowhegan 
School used the following methods to publicize their charrette: Planned 
Professional Print and Planned Other. The following methods were used to 
publicize the results of the charrette: 



Actual General Print 
Actual Professional Print 
Planned Electronic Media 
Actual Electronic Media 
Actual Other. 

An additional strategy used by the School for publicity was a submission 
exhibit. This charrette was considered to have a low publicity value for both 
planned and actual, and in fact only used three types of planned publicity and 
four actual . 

The data presented in this Appendix can therefore be used to augment the 
evaluation report, by providing either additional frequencies of particular 
variables of interest or by providing case studies of one (or more) grantee's 
approach to a particular facet of design competition management. 



KEY 

A Type I Grant 

B Type II Grant 

C Planned Professional Advisor 

D Actual Professional Advisor 

E Planned Schedule 

F Actual Schedule 

G Planned Testing 

H Actual Testing 

I Planned Question Period 

J Actual Question Period 

K Planned Procedural Rules 

L Actual Procedural Rules 

M Planned Problems Encountered 

N Actual Problems Encountered 

Planned Willingness of Sponsor 

P Actual Willingness of Sponsor 

Q Planned Budget Established 

R Actual Budget Established 

S Planned Commitments Honored 

T Actual Commitments Honored 

U Planned Budget 

V Actual Budget 

W Planned Salaries 
X Actual Salaries 

Y Planned Supplies of Materials 
Z Actual Supplies of Materials 



COMPETITIONS 



NAME ABCDEFGHIJKLMN0PQRSTUVWXY7 

Milwaukee County 00 0000 0000000 

22 4230 202 

San Francisco Friends 00 000000000 

22 4230 031 

Newport News, City of 000000 00 00000 000000 

32 4230 00187 

New Orleans Museum 00 0000 00000 000 000 

34 4230 00085 

Jacob's Pillow Festival 
32 4230 00186 

Townscape Institute 00 00000 0000000 

32 4230 00091 

Boston Redvlpt Authority 00000 000 0000 0000000 

32 4230 00183 

Chandler, City of 0000 00 00000 0000000 

32 4230 00078 

Minneapolis Soc. of Fine Arts 0000 00000 0000000 

32 4230 00084 

Municipal Arts Soc. of N.Y. 000 00000 0000000 

42 4257 0070 

Arizona State University 00000 0000 0000000 

42 4231 0154 

NAHRO 0000 0000 00000 

42 4257 0071 



Oberlln College 
52 4257 0028 



0000 00 0000 

00 0000 

000000 00 00000 

00 0000 00000 

0000 0000 0000 

00 00000 

00000 000 0000 

0000 00 00000 

0000 00000 

000 00000 

00000 0000 

0000 0000 

0000 00000 

00000 0000 

00000 000 0000 

000 0000 

00 00 00000 

0000 0000 0000 

000000 0000 00000 

0000 00 0000 

0000 000 0000 

00000 00 0000 

0000 00000 

00000 00 0000 



Hillside Trust 0000 00000 000000 

42 4257 0069 

ASC/AIA 00000 0000 0000 00 

42 4231 0155 

Escondido, City of 00000 000 0000 0000000 

42 4257 0067 

Roger Williams College 000 0000 00000 

42 4257 0073 

Florida, University of 
42 4257 0068 

Irwin Sweeny Miller 0000 0000 0000 00000 

42 4257 0020 

VA Polytechnic Institute 000000 0000 00000 0000000 

42 4257 0094 

Arizona H1st. Society 00 0000 0000000 

52 4257 0017 







St. Paul, City of 00000 00 0000 0000000 

52 4257 0050 

CA/Berkeley, University of 0000 00000 00000 

32 4230 00077 

Ala. School of Fine Arts 00000 00 0000 000000 

52 4257 0127 



KEY 

AA Planned Travel 

AB Actual Travel 

AC Planned Permanent Equipment 

AD Actual Permanent Equipment 

AE Planned Fees and Other 

AF Actual Fees and Other 

AG Planned Publicity 

AH Actual Publicity 

AI Planned Prizes 

AJ Actual Prizes 

AK Planned Monetary Income 

AL Actual Monetary Income 

AM Planned In-Kind Contributions 

AN Actual In-Kind Contributions 

AO Planned Other Grants 

AP Actual Other Grants 

AQ Planned Federal Grants 

AR Actual Federal Grants 

AS Planned Other Revenues 

AT Actual Other Revenues 

AU Planned Other Assurances 

AV Actual Other Assurances 

AW Planned Structure (A, B, C, D, E) 

AX Actual Structure (A, B, C, D, E) 

AY Planned Approach (F, G, H) 

AZ Actual Approach (F, G, H) 



NAME 

Milwaukee County 
22 4230 202 

San Francisco Friends 
22 4230 031 

Newoort News, City of 
32 4230 00187 

New Orleans Museum 
34 4230 00085 

Jacob's Pillow Festival 
32 4230 00186 

Townscaoe Institute 
32 4230 00091 

Boston Redvlpt Authority 
32 4230 00183 

Chandler, City of 
32 4230 00078 

Minneapolis Soc. of Fine Arts 
32 4230 00084 

Municipal Arts Soc. of N.Y. 
42 4257 0070 

Arizona State University 
42 4231 0154 

NAHR0 

42 4257 0071 

Hillside Trust 
42 4257 0069 

ASC/AIA 

42 4231 0155 

Escondido, City of 
42 4257 0067 

Roger Williams College 
42 4257 0073 

Florida, University of 
42 4257 0068 

Irwin Sweeny Miller 
42 4257 0020 

VA Polytechnic Institute 
42 4257 0094 

Arizona Hist. Society 
52 4257 0017 

Oberlin Colleae 
52 4257 0028 

St. Paul , City of 
52 4257 0050 

CA/Berkeley, University of 
32 4230 00077 

Ala. School of Fine Arts 
52 4257 0127 



ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
00 000 0000 0000 BAFF 



















































































00 0000000 























000 0000000000 



00000000 



00000000 















000 00 000000000 



000 00000 



000 00 000 











000 0000000000000 







000 00000 



000000000 























0000000000 



000000000 











A A F F 



E B H H 



00000 BBHG 



C C F H 



B B H H 



00000 AAHH 



A A F G 



A A F F 



A E G G 



C C F F 



A H H 



C C F F 



00000 BBHH 



00000 AAGG 



BBHH 



0000 0000000000 AAHH 



000 00000 0000000 BBFF 







00000 AAFF 











0000000000 



A A G H 



B B H 



KEY 



BA Planned Area of Design Concern (I, J, K) 

BB Actual Area of Design Concern (I, J, K) 

BC Planned Registration Fee 

BD Actual Registration Fee 

BE Planned Amount of Registration Fee (H, M, L) 

BF Actual Amount of Registration Fee (H, M, L) 

B6 Planned Incentive (A, B, C, D) 

BH Actual Incentive (A, B, C, D) 

BI Planned Amount of First Place 

BJ Actual Amount of First Place 

BK Planned Value of First Place (H, M, L) 

BL Actual Value of First Place (H, M, L) 

BM Planned Total Amount of Awards 

BN Actual Total Amount of Awards 

BO Planned Total Value of Awards (H, M, L) 

BP Actual Total Value of Awards (H, M, L) 

BQ Planned Number of Prizes 

BR Actual Number of Prizes 

BS Planned Number of Registrants 

BT Actual Number of Registrants 

BU Planned Number of Entrants 

BV Actual Number of Entrants 

BW Planned General Print 

BX Actual General Print 

BY Planned Professional Print 

BZ Actual Professional Print 



B 

NAME 

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 
Milwaukee County 

22 4230 202 JJ00LLAA00MM00LL00 000 

San Francisco Friends 

22 4230 031 KK0OLLDDOOMH00MH00 000 

Newport News, City of 

32 4230 00187 KK00MHBC00HH00HH00 00000 

New Orleans Museum 

34 4230 00085 KK00MMCB00LH00MM 

Jacob's Pillow Festival 

32 4230 00186 JJ00HHCC00MM00MM00 

Townscape Institute 

32 4230 00091 K00LLAA00LL00L1000000 

Boston Redvlpt Authority 

32 4230 00183 KK HCC H H 000 

Chandler, City of 

32 4230 00078 KK00LLCC00MM00MM00 

Minneapolis Soc. of Fine Arts 

32 4230 00084 IK0OMMAB00MLOOMLO0O0000000 

Municipal Arts Soc. of N.Y. 

42 4257 0070 II00MMAA00LL00MM0000 000 

Arizona State University 

42 4231 0154 K K L B00MM00HH00 000 

NAHRO 
42 4257 0071 JJ00LLAA00LL00LL00 

Hillside Trust 
42 4257 0069 JJOOLL A M M 000 00 

ASC/AIA 

42 4231 0155 JJOOLLAAOOLLOOMMOO 00 

Escondldo, City of 
42 4257 0067 KKOOMHCCOOMMOOMHOOOO 00 

Roger Williams College 

42 4257 0073 KKOOHHAAOOHHOOHHOO 000 

Florida, University of 

42 4257 0068 KK HCC H HOO 00 00 

Irwin Sweeny Miller 
42 4257 0020 KKOOMMCCOOMMOOLLOO 

YA Polytechnic Institute 

42 4257 0094 KJOOMMAAOOMMOOMM 000 0000 

Arizona H1st. Society 

52 4257 0017 KKOOMM C MOOMM 000 P 

Oberlln College 
52 4257 0028 KKOOLLAAOOMMOOLLOOOO 000 

St. Paul, City of 

52 4257 0050 KOOLMCCOOMMOOMMOOOO 00 

CA/Berkeley, University of 

32 4230 00077 KK BCOOMMOOMM 

Ala. School of Fine Arts 

52 4257 0127 KKOOMM C MOOHH 00 



KEY 



CA Planned Electronic Media 

CB Actual Electronic Media 

CC Planned Flyers 

CD Actual Flyers 

CE Planned Posters 

CF Actual Posters 

CG Planned Other 

CH Actual Other 

CI Planned General Print 

CJ Actual General Print 

CK Planned Professional Print 

CL Actual Professional Print 

CM Planned Electronic Media 

CN Actual Electronic Media 

CO Planned Flyers 

CP Actual Flyers 

CQ Planned Posters 

CR Actual Posters 

CS Planned Other 

CT Actual Other 

CU Planned Catalogue Distribution 

CV Actual Catalogue Distribution 

CW Planned Submission Exhibit 

CX Actual Submission Exhibit 

CY Planned Winner Exhibit 

CZ Actual Winner Exhibit 



Publicity for Competition 



Publicity of Results 



Plans 



c 

NAME 

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 

Milwaukee County 
22 4230 202 

San Francisco Friends 

22 4230 031 

Newport News, City of 

32 4230 00187 O 

New Orleans Museum 
34 4230 00085 

Jacob's Pillow Festival 
32 4230 00186 

Townscape Institute 

32 4230 00091 

Boston Redvlpt Authority 
32 4230 00183 

Chandler, City of 
32 4230 00078 

Minneapolis Soc. of Fine Arts 

32 4230 00084 00 0000000 0000 00 

Municipal Arts Soc. of N.Y. 
42 4257 0070 

Arizona State University 

42 4231 0154 

NAHRO 

42 4257 0071 

Hillside Trust 
42 4257 0069 

ASC/AIA 

42 4231 0155 

Escondldo, City of 
42 4257 0067 

Roger Williams College 
42 4257 0073 

Florida, University of 

42 4257 0068 

Irwin Sweeny Miller n n n « « « 

42 4257 0020 ° » 

VA 42°42l7 C TO9$ InSt1tUte 

Arizona H1st. Society 
52 4257 0017 u ° ° 

Oberlln College .-. ft n n n „ „ 

52 4257 0028 J 

St. Paul, City Of n n n n n n n « * 

52 4257 0050 



















00 0000000 

























CA/Berkeley, University of 
32 4230 00077 

Ala. School of Fine Arts 
52 4257 0127 







KEY 



DA Planned Target Specific Group 

DB Actual Target Specific Group 

DC Planned Public Information Strategy 

DD Actual Public Information Strategy 

DE Planned Publicity Percentage of Budget 

DF Actual Publicity Percentage of Budget 

DG Planned Publicity Value (H, M, L) 

DH Actual Publicity Value (H, M, L) 

DI Planned Types of Publicity (No.) 

DJ Actual Types of Publicity (No.) 

DK Planned Community Groups 

DL Actual Community Groups 

DM Planned Public Officials 

DN Actual Public Officials 

DO Planned Private Business/Groups 

DP Actual Private Business/Groups Community Support 

DQ Planned Citizen Advisory Boards 

DR Actual Citizen Advisory Boards 

DS Planned Citizen Input 

DT Actual Citizen Input 

DU Planned Case by Case 

DV Actual Case by Case 

DW Planned Total Competition Cost 

DX Actual Total Competition Cost 

DY Planned Total Competition Cost 

DZ Actual Total Competition Cost 

EA Planned Plan to Build (y n) 

EB Actual Plan to Build (y n) 



P E 

NAME 

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ AB 
Milwaukee County 

22 4230 202 0L04000 OOLLNN 

San Francisco Friends 
22 4230 031- 000L0600 OOLLYY 

Newport News, City of 

32 4230 00187 L 4 6 OOHHYY 

New Orleans Museum 

34 4230 00085 00MM160 L M Y Y 

Jacob's Pillow Festival 
32 4230 00186 0L06 OOLLYY 

Townscape Institute 

32 4230 00091 000 L 070 OOLLYY 

Boston Redvlpt Authority 

32 4230 00183 00LL170 OOHHYY 

Chandler, City of 

32 4230 00078 00ML060 OOLLYY 

Minneapolis Soc. of Fine Arts 

32 4230 00084 DO OOMM10 90 OOMMNY 

Municipal Arts Soc. of N.Y. 

42 4257 0070 0M25 OOHHNN 

Arizona State University 
42 4231 0154 0L230 OOHHYY 

NAHRO 

42 4257 0071 0H05 OOLLNN 

Hillside Trust 

42 4257 0069 L430 MMYY 

ASC/AIA 

42 4231 0155 

Escondldo, City of 
42 4257 0067 M 

Roger Williams College 

42 4257 0073 ML10 OOMMYY 

Florida, University of 

42 4257 0068 6100 LLYY 

Irwin Sweeny MUler 
42 4257 0020 00HL050 OOMMYY 

VA Polytechnic Institute 

42 4257 0094 00 5500 OOHHYN 

Arizona Hist. Society 

52 4257 0017 L 

OberUn College 

52 4257 0028 M L 3 L Y Y 

St. Paul , City of 

52 4257 0050 00LM27 OHMYY 

CA/Berkeley, University of 

32 4230 00077 0L000 OOMMYY 

Ala. School of Fine Arts 

52 4257 0127 L 3 OOMMYY 










H 







5 





















L 




4 


3 

























H 




3 


3 






















M 




3 


5 
























M 


L 


1 


5 
























6 


1 

























H 


L 





5 


























5 


5 





















L 




1 


2 






















M 


L 


3 


5 


























L 
L 


M 


2 




7 























L 




3 



















KEY 

A Type I Grant 

B Type II Grant 

C Planned Professional Advisor 

D Actual Professional Advisor 

E Planned Schedule 

F Actual Schedule 

G Planned Testing 

H Actual Testing 

I Planned Question Period 

J Actual Question Period 

K Planned Procedural Rules 

L Actual Procedural Rules 

M Planned Problems Encountered 

N Actual Problems Encountered 

Planned Willingness of Sponsor 

P Actual Willingness of Sponsor 

Q Planned Budget Established 

R Actual Budget Established 

S Planned Commitments Honored 

T Actual Commitments Honored 

U Planned Budget 

Y Actual Budget 

W Planned Salaries 

X Actual Salaries 

Y Planned Supplies of Materials 
Z Actual Supplies of Materials 



CHARRETTES 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ 



St. Paul, City of (Lowert. ) 
42 4257 0021 

CA/Santa Barbara, Univ. of 
32 4230 00069 

Pilobolus, Inc. 
32 4230 00172 

Institute for Urban Design 
32 4230 00082 

Skowhegan School 
22 4230 034 

Triton Museum of Art 
22 4230 214 

ACSA 

22 4230 192 

Friends of the Library 
22 4230 223 


























































































































































































































































































































































































































KEY 

AA Planned Travel 

AB Actual Travel 

AC Planned Permanent Equipment 

AD Actual Permanent Equipment 

AE Planned Fees and Other 

AF Actual Fees and Other 

AG Planned Publicity 

AH Actual Publicity 

AI Planned Prizes 

AJ Actual Prizes 

AK Planned Monetary Income 

AL Actual Monetary Income 

AM Planned In-Kind Contributions 

AN Actual In-Kind Contributions 

AO Planned Other Grants 

AP Actual Other Grants 

AQ Planned Federal Grants 

AR Actual Federal Grants 

AS Planned Other Revenues 

AT Actual Other Revenues 

AU Planned Other Assurances 

AV Actual Other Assurances 

AW Planned Structure (A, B, C, D, E) 

AX Actual Structure (A, B, C, D, E) 

AY Planned Approach (F, G, H) 

AZ Actual Approach (F, G, H) 



m 

^ CHARRETTES 

" A B C D E F G H I J K L M N P R S T U V W X Y Z 

W P 4257 W21 ° f (L ° WertJ D D F F 

^J^oSo^ 3 ' Univ ' ° f D D H H 

Pi: 2 b 4230'00172 00 00000000 0000000 DGG 



* 



^4230 00082 rban ^^ ° ° ° DDF 



SB whegan School 

^ 2 4230 034 



I 



AlsA 

22 4230 192 



i 



1 
i 



00 00000000 00 DDHH 



* 1 -:2°4230 S 21I4 * ** ° ° DDHH 



00 000 00000 0000 DDFF 

r 



22 n 4230 f 223 e L1br3ry 00 00000000 0000 DDFF 



KEY 



BA Planned Area of Design Concern (I, J, K) 

BB Actual Area of Design Concern (I, J, K) 

BC Planned Registration Fee 

BD Actual Registration Fee 

BE Planned Amount of Registration Fee (H, M, L) 

BF Actual Amount of Registration Fee (H, M, L) 

BG Planned Incentive (A, B, C, D) 

BH Actual Incentive (A, B, C, D) 

BI Planned Amount of First Place 

BJ Actual Amount of First Place 

BK Planned Value of First Place (H, M, L) 

BL Actual Value of First Place (H, M, L) 

BM Planned Total Amount of Awards 

BN Actual Total Amount of Awards 

BO Planned Total Value of Awards (H, M, L) 

BP Actual Total Yalue of Awards (H, M, L) 

BQ Planned Number of Prizes 

BR Actual Number of Prizes 

BS Planned Number of Registrants 

BT Actual Number of Registrants 

BU Planned Number of Entrants 

BY Actual Number of Entrants 

BW Planned General Print 

BX Actual General Print 

BY Planned Professional Print 

BZ Actual Professional Print 



< 



CHARRETTES 

B 

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPORSTUVWXYZ 



St. Paul, City of (Lowert. ) 
42 4257 0021 



^/Santa Barbara, Univ. of 
32 4230 00069 



JJ LAA00LL00MM 000 

KKOOHHAAOOHHOOHHOOOOOO 000 

'ifjla^nSS; K K B B L L 

AAOOLLOOHH 

C MOOML 

CC MOOMM 

A LOOMM 

AAOOHHOOLLOO 



32 4230'00172 


K 


K 


institute for Urban Design 
32 4230 00082 


J 


J 


Skowhegan School 
22 4230 034 


K 


K 


riton Museum of Art 
22 4230 214 


J 


J 


-SA 

"22 4230 192 


J 


J 


c riends of the Library 
22 4230 223 


I 


J 



i 



« 



KEY 



CA Planned Electronic Media 

CB Actual Electronic Media 

CC Planned Flyers 

CD Actual Flyers 

CE Planned Posters 

CF Actual Posters 

CG Planned Other 

CH Actual Other 

CI Planned General Print 

CJ Actual General Print 

CK Planned Professional Print 

CL Actual Professional Print 

CM Planned Electronic Media 

CN Actual Electronic Media 

CO Planned Flyers 

CP Actual Flyers 

CQ Planned Posters 

CR Actual Posters 

CS Planned Other 

CT Actual Other 

CU Planned Catalogue Distribution 

CV Actual Catalogue Distribution 

CW Planned Submission Exhibit 

CX Actual Submission Exhibit 

CY Planned Winner Exhibit 

CZ Actual Winner Exhibit 



Publicity for Competition 



Publicity of Results 



Plans 



St. Paul, City of (Lowert.) 
42 4257 0021 

CA/Santa Barbara, Univ. of 
32 4230 00069 

Pilobolus, Inc. 
32 4230 00172 

Institute for Urban Design 
32 4230 00082 

Skowhegan School 
22 4230 034 

Triton Museum of Art 
22 4230 214 

ACSA 

22 4230 192 

Friends of the Library 
22 4230 223 



CHARRETTES 

C 

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVVXYZ 


00 00 00 00 













































\ 



i 



KEY 



DA Planned Target Specific Group 

DB Actual Target Specific Group 

DC Planned Public Information Strategy 

DD Actual Public Information Strategy 

DE Planned Publicity Percentage of Budget 

DF Actual Publicity Percentage of Budget 

DG Planned Publicity Value (H, M, L) 

DH Actual Publicity Value (H, M, L) 

DI Planned Types of Publicity (No.) 

DJ Actual Types of Publicity (No.) 

DK Planned Community Groups 

DL Actual Community Groups 

DM Planned Public Officials 

DN Actual Public Officials 

DO Planned Private Business/Groups 

DP Actual Private Business/Groups Community Support 

DQ Planned Citizen Advisory Boards 

DR Actual Citizen Advisory Boards 

DS Planned Citizen Input 

DT Actual Citizen Input 

DU Planned Case by Case 

DV Actual Case by Case 

DW Planned Total Competition Cost 

DX Actual Total Competition Cost 

DY Planned Total Competition Cost 

DZ Actual Total Competition Cost 

EA Planned Plan to Build (y n) 
EB Actual Plan to Build (y n) 



CHARRETTES 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAB 



St. Paul, City of (Lowert. ) 
42 4257 0021 

CA/Santa Barbara, Univ. of 
32 4230 00069 

PHobolus, Inc. 
32 4230 00172 

Institute for Urban Design 
32 4230 00082 

Skowhegan School 
22 4230 034 

Triton Museum of Art 
22 4230 214 

ACSA 

22 4230 192 

Friends of the Library 
22 4230 223 














1 


6 

















M 


M Y 


Y 










M 




2 


8 



















M 


N Y 


Y 















1 

















L 


L f 


Y 










H 


M 


3 


3 











• 









M 


L N 


N 










L 


L 


3 


4 



















H 


M Y 


Y 










L 


L 





7 



















L 


L Y 


Y 









L 







4 
















N 


M N 


N 









L 




1 


7 




















L 


L Y 


Y 



APPENDIX B: 
Competition and Charrette Crosstabs 



APPENDIX B: A USER'S GUIDE 

This Appendix presents the statistical tests performed as the core of the 
analysis procedure. The data represented in Appendix A are used to describe 
types of variables used and to count the number of times different types or 
combinations of types may be used. The tables in this Appendix on the other 
hand, refer to the principal analytical statistic used. This is chi-square, 
which was defined in the first section of the evaluation report. It is used 
to measure the degree of association between two variables, in other words, 
the effect one thing may have on another. 

Just what does one of the tables in this Appendix tell us? If we break one of 
these into its component parts, we get a much clearer picture of the types of 
information presented. Then we can go on to determine just how chi-square 
relates to this body of information. 

A typical table is presented below. The x axis refers to the horizontal 

information, and the y axis to the vertical. In addition, there are four 

numbers in each of the boxes. Going from top down, these refer to number, row 
percent, column percent and total percent. 

Number refers to the actual count of the combinations presented on the table. 
For example, projects with a high actual value of award occur five times. Row 
percent refers to the percentage of the horizontal group of boxes. These add 
up to one-hundred, and represent the total number of cases in that row. Thus 
the row percents for plan are: 0% (high), 66.7% (medium), and 33.3% (low). 
Column percent, on the other hand, represents the total percent of the 
vertical axis. Column percents for the low actual value of award are: 16.7% 
(idea), 33.3% (plan), and 50.0% (project). Total percent refers to the 
particular number of cases in each box in proportion to the total number of 
cases overall. The sum of the nine total percent figures will equal 100%. 
Row totals and colu;nn totals are the number and total percent of all of the 
cases in one line of the table in relation to the total number of cases. 

Chi-square uses this table to determine the measure of association between the 
two variables. The computer has already performed the tricky calculation, but 



ACTUAL VALUE OF AWARD - (X AXIS) 

■BY- 

ACTUAL AREA OF DESIGN CONCERN - (Y AXIS) 



Number 








- 


Row % 










Column % 








ROW 


Total % 


HIGH 


MEDIUM 


LOW 


TOTALS 










1.0 




IDEA 


0.0 


0.0 


100.0 


1.0 




0.0 


0.0 


16.7 


4.3 




0.0 


0.0 


4.3 









4.0 









0.0 


66.7 


33.3 


6.0 


PLAN 


0.0 


33.3 


33.3 


26.1 




0.0 


17.4 


8.7 






5.0 


8.0 


3.0 




PROJECT 


31.3 


50.0 


18.8 


16.0 




100.0 


66.7 


50.0 


69.6 




21.7 


34.8 


13.0 




COLUMN 


5.0 


12.0 


6.0 


23.0 


TOTALS 


21.7 


52.2 


26.1 


100.0 



Chi-square = 5.51 Valid cases = 23 
Degrees of freedom = 4 Missing cases = 1 

Responsible rate = 95.8% 

Caution: 8 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5. 

it is up to us to determine if that value is significant or not. In essence, 
significance in this use means whether or not a relationship exists. In order 
to determine significance, we need four pieces of information. These are: 
the value for chi-square, the value of the degrees of freedom, the level of 
significance and a table of the chi-square distribution. The value for 
chi-square is provided below the table, as is the value for the degrees of 
freedom. Degrees of freedom refer to the number of independent comparisons. 
In order to compensate for overlapping cases (which would result from simply 
multiplying the number of rows by the number of columns), the degree of 
freedom is determined by multiplying the number of columns minus one by the 
number of rows minus one. For the table provided, there are three rows and 
three columns, which produce the following equation. 

(3-1) x (3-1) = (2) x (2) = 4 



There are four degrees of freedom for this table. The level of significance 
that is most commonly used in statistical tests is .05, which assures that 
there is a 95% probability of statistical relationship existing, rather than 
it being the result of random chance. Chi-square tables contain the values 
for all of the possible degrees of freedom for realistic tables, at several 
different levels of significance. 

We now have a value of chi-square of 5.51, for four degrees of freedom, at an 
.05 level of significance. Going to the Chi-Square Distribution Tables 
reveals that the value for chi-square is 9.48773. Since the value we had for 
chi-square is less, we therefore determine that there is no significant 
relationship between the actual value of award and the actual area of design 
concern. This type of procedure was performed for all of the tables in this 
Appendix to determine the significance of the relationships. 



8 

d 



oe co co i- 

M - (O * 

00 oo cm * 



»n 00 CM uo r- 

— ws cm cm is 

WS MP CO — CO 



S3 

WS CM 



38 

us — 



is cm O cm o 
os us pa — . cm 

« m n n oo 



(O N 00 00 9 
- OS 0} N N 



o 

cm «o 
co © mp 



N * P) N 

is a> o 

" 00 CO 



8 O CO p 
t» * i 4 



n si « a 
— no-* 
n oo n » 



O co op ao 



O « » » N 
O* CM CM CM CM 



8 



— cm mp co 

CO CO CO CO 



n co * 



cN CO 



m 5D ao a> — 
mp mp * m» uo 



cm mp us 

us us us 



s 



o n « ci 
ionoo a 



CM V Is Os 

- n n ▼ 



8 

d 



•V CO — CM 

O) tO Q0 

is as 

ao m 



23 

c- d cm mp 



o «o is o co 

as I- is wo Os 

«r •» is uo op 

Is ws cm ©s us 



N 31 io * n 

Sco as as oi 

— is CM CO CO 



CO cm uo "» CM 

— Is OO CO CM 

© to — wo op 

ao CM Is — ws 



S© OS 00 WO 
MP l"» — «0 



CO OS OS CO CD 

r- OS M" CO « 

CM 00 MP OS CO 

© CM CO C» CO 

to ao as p cm 

MP M" MP US WS 



SS8S 

CO r- mp as 

2| O — 
co r» O 



ws — g> os 

— CM £> CO 
CM CO CM — 



CO 00 O — CO 
— — CM CM CM 



wo co ao as — 

CM CM CM CM CO 



N » K) r» oo 
CO CO CO CO CO 



as — CM MP 

CO M» M» M« 



■j. co 00 O 
© — CM M> 



© 
o 
d 



cs co os is 

MP O MP CO 

S — **• Is 
CM CO CM 

co as — co 



SO) CO 

— WO 

CO — ls 

O 00 MP 



CO 
CO 



CO p o CO CO 

Suo is co — 

CM — 8 M« 

CM is CM CO — 



as OS Is 

NOOO 

is s © 
to as m" 



CM — M" MP 
CO CM OS CO 

M S2 



ao 



os cm cO os 
Is Op O — CM 

CO CO MP M" MP 



— r- O CM as 
MP — CO CO is 

— M» CO Is op 
CO CO OS CM US 



§ 



NO * 
O CO OS 
0> WS r- 
CO — CO 



« O) «5 N 
CM CM — Q 
M> CO — CO 



us co ao o — 

— — — CM CM 



CO mp O Is OS 
CM CM CM CM CM 



O — CO M- CO 
CO CO CO CO CO 



M» WS CO 00 CS 



M« M" M» MP "«P WS CO 



O CO CO CO 

is 00 



82S 



DO MP WS 

— CM CO 



O 

d 



OS CO O 

co r- mp co 

co r* 00 co 

Sr» m» mp 

co co — 



WS mp 00 CD 00 
CM OS CM M" CM 



— © Is co o 

SO CO WS OS 
CM CO CO — 

mp os co Is — 



MP MP © MP CO 
Op WO — CO CM 
O0 MP OS CM W3 

■» ao-c oo) 
is op d — cm 

CM C* CO CO CO 



D O) S N - 

OS ao © uo MP 

CO N CO N CO 

— MP Is © CO 



SCM M" r» CM 

O "» Oft 

M» CM OS CO CM 

CO OS — M" r- 



CM Is CM CO 

© — © |s 
N»001 
OS CO M» CM 



as co — 

CM CO CO 

co — 2 



ICNOS- 



CM M" CD t» OS 



O — CO M» CD 
CM CM CM CM M 



MP US CD CO as 
CO CO CO CO CO 



© — CO M 1 WO 



M»M»MPM»MP MP WS |s 



ep co - n 



uo co ao as 



8 

o 
d 



CO 1^ CO CO 



MP OS — CO 

00 CS CO MP 



UO CD — CO p 

O — Is Is * 
NdOO- 

© uo p uo © 



o — — — oo 

Is WO CO CM MP 

O r- ^ co op 

CO CD O CO cD 



Sc^c: 

8 



CM — CO UO 
OS CO 



O O M" CM UO 

MP CD OS — MP 



UO CM CO CM OS 

CM UO CO Is CO 

UO CO — CO U0 

co a8 — CO ws 



as uo co as 

CM CO MP — 

NiOOffl 
«s Is us O 

co uo is as 
M" uj co r- 



CM 

— OS UO CM 

CO is M" MP 
UO 00 — PO 



(4 PO t> OS 



— CM MP U0 CD 



00 © — CM CO 
— — CM CM CM 



MC9S00O 
CM CM CM CM CO 



— CM CO 
CO CO CO 



CD 
CO 



SO — CM 
M» MP M» 



O — CO MP 
OS O — CM 



8 



M» r>- as M» 

UO — CO MP 

SUJ — OS 

Q uo r- 

t» i N N 



UO 

SCO O CD 

-r t-~ — • 

-0 MP — CD 

CM O O CO 



— O MP OS CM 

r» uo OS -• M" 

CO r» M- — OB 

a> cm uo ao o 



cm ao p m« <o o — coasco 
ro — OSOSCO CMUScOcOcD 

Om>cocoO — — — o a> 

MP CO 00 



O M» CO 

CO UO r» OS 



— cm as 



as op co m» — co 

— rt uo r- OS O 



O O — O 

lOiOSS 

uo p co o» 
cm 36 — co 



— CM 

r- 00 uo CO 

CM r» O OS 

uo US uo M" 



CM M» CO t» 



as o cm co m« 



wo r» ao OS — 

— — —• — CM 



as 



MP US r- 
CM CM CM 



ss 



O CM CO 

CO CO CO 



m» uo co r» as 

CO CO CO CO CO 



O-cl* uj 
M» US 00 r» CO 



CD r» 00 
3S O — 



So 

CM 

d 



O OS U0 f~ 

CO UO CO CM 

CO CM qp uj 

CM r» O ao 

CO r» — CO 



SO uo 

00 — op 

mo NX 

CM M» CO — 

CO 00 O CM 



OS r- M" OS O 
00 O uo CO r» 

r» CO OS — 



us 

cm CO MP us r» 



-i oe r> os 00 

Si 8S£ 

CM CO M" CO r- 



r» ao co co eM 
r» M" os — — 



CM CO CO M» 

00 OS o — 



CM 



OS US M" UO OS 

ao M» CO O O 

CO CO CM CM — 

m » m ojn 



00 p CD MP 
CD CO — 

t» co n as 



2 3 
— co ao r» CO m» m« 



SSSs- 
r- CO M» M» 
us — CO — 

M" W0 cC CO N CO 00 pi 

com'uscd r> oo a o 



— CM MP US 



CD r- as O — 



ao as o — cm 

— — • CM CM CM 



CO M» CO r» 00 
CM CM CM CM CM 



OS O — CM CO 
CM CO CO CO CO 



— CM O M» *fSM)rv«DO 



O — CM CO MT 



■OKOJC 



— CM CO ■* 
CM CM CM CM 



W0 MS is. OO e> 
CM CM CM CM CM 



83S>S g8g8 



CO 

u 
sJ 

5 



2 

O 
M 
H 

ta 

or 

a 



p 
a 

to 
I 



8 

o 



s? 

d 



CO OS r- O 

os cm as r- 

M> co uo CD 

US CO CD us 

M» CO CO CO 



CM 

00 O 



CO CM — CM CO 

— ao 3 m» CM mSQ 

WSM'M«M"M» »^i^. 

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO C*5 CO 



00 O CO 00 CO 

— — O os as 



a> < — as co «*C400>r*» 

Op OD ODN S N rM r> (O C 

H 52 £2 ^^ ro co co co co 

co co co cO co co co co co co 



SSSSS 2S35 

CQ CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 

CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO 



O — CM CO 



M» WS CD •> 00 



OS O — CM CO 



MP WS <0 r» 00 



OS O — CM CO 
— CM CM CM CM 



as 



as o> a> as 

CM CO M" WS 



CO CO CO WS 

UO CO uj US 

— UO CM CM 

O r» — CM 

— uo cm as 



MP CO CM -- 

<*• mp M- m 

CO CO CO CO 
CO CO CO CO 

SOS OS OS 
r» op & 



co co ao CO op 

M» M» M- O CO 

C» WS WS l"» OS 

CD M> CM O 00 



O CM CM 
CM 



CM CM CO 

-tO» wscMOScop 00 M- CO CO CM 

m- ao as uo co cm — uo CM m M* as r> r« 

ro op co a. co co — os r- co wsm»cococo 

n 2 t S - o as r^ co uo mp co cm — o 



CO M" M" CM 

as 
co 



CO co — op 

s o n rt 



o o — — 



CM CO M" US US 



(O N O0 OS O 



— — CM CO M" 



us CD r» CO as 



SOS r» 

M" ws OP r~ OB m« as 

r> CO WS mp CD OS CM 

osd-"P»<*' mp co eoj cm 

— CM CM CM CM CMC0M*WS 



CO US r» CM 

OS 5 CM CO 

CO — CO — 

CD r» CO OS 



p O ws co 

OS CM C- CM 

r» r» co co 

O CM wo O 



— co — mp co ao as p p ro us co 

8 — — ws— — r» ao WS u5 r»cMCMOS 

Mpcoosao uo r» co — os cdcm' 

— P CO 00 CD SON Of 00 

co cm ac m- — aouscoo 



o o o — 



— CM CM CO MP 



US CO O t* 

uo CO r- 



WS CO O 

co as o 



CO CO uo as r- 

CM CB — r> op 

M" CO MP M- UO 

MP CM O CO CO 



i 



as 

2? 



— CM CO MP MP WS 



■pp as cc cm r- 

CO ■■ CO OS I s * 

r» as — co CO 

M» CM — OS r» 

CO S 00 CO O O OS N OS 

— — — — — CMCMC0MP 



goo CM — 

r» — CO 

r» as w5 

CO CM CM CO 



u? S r- So 



2S 

*ci 



CM 

co O 

OS 
CO 



CD — 
M- CM 
CO r- 

— o 

uo — 
co r<- 



r> as ws mp — 

MP CO CO cO — 

US WS r- CM US 

M" CO CO CO CM 

— CO — N CO 



o — 

- 00 



s 



o o 



— — CM CM CO 



3 

M> r» CM OS is. 

as ws cm ao ws 

compwswsco r>r>aoa>o 



§• Is * O 
CO r» OS — 
CM O CD CO — 



O — CM CO CO 



OS 

us 



mp — co as CO COC0CMOS 

— OS — ts CO NO « N 

— ■>• ws cm o as o co oo 
CD co — OS r» -» uo r~ — 



co ws p ws 
as — cO os 
CO as CM CM 



MPWOcDcDls. ao co m> ro 
— _ _ _ — —t CM CO MP 



is CO — OS 

— p os r» 

ws m co •> 




— Is 

— MP Is CO OS 
CM CO 00 Is CO 

— is os as p 

SCO Op Is O 

CM CO — is 

o — — 



iswoosmpcm Mpcooousus 

OStstststs — CO — is US 

cowscoaoap mnco 

CMCOM.8i? *°*« 



CM CM 



CO CO MP WS WS 



3383 

CO O rs 00 00 OSOO— CM 



CO CO 

ao as co us — 

p CM CM a6 — 

as oo oo 55 o 

WS CM OS CO M» 



r^ascoos— oo — m is 

oscocorsis Ocois — 

— mp is o m; oscouoco 

— 00 US CO O Ispp-COMP 



co cm co as 

Is CO CO — 

US WS MP CM 

is — CD CM 



CO CO M> uo CO 



CO MP CM O 
— CM CO MP 



00 is ws •• 
MP WS CD is 



8 WS CO CM CM 

• m» ao — 

CO O P "T OS 

MP CM OS CD Is 

ws is co mp ao 

US 00 CM CO O 



O — — CM 




ws — <o — co ooatis 

COeMlsOSIs f c-l -pt <o 

OSCMtsMPCM OtsCMUS 

cM — p — co co as m" as 

CMOOMPOC0 CM00US — 



O — co ao 

MP 00 00 "f 

CM OS r» CO 

WS — 00 ws 



uo us co is ao 

w> 2 co o ao 
CM as — |s MP 



wswscoisis ao ao as o O 



OO — CM CM CO •* » w a 



ao p — op 

— O M- ^ 

MP M» UO CO 

MP WS IS o 

us co — d 

MP US CO is 



o is wo as co 

MP CM CO — CM 

Is |s CM MP OS 

— UO OS 

— is ao mp ro 
mp co a co is 



— CM WS — CM CO CO 

mp as 00 CM ao P CO 

* MP US CO CO UO MP 

US P Is CO Is 

— CO O uo O 



MP MP MP — ao 
as cm cm ao OS 



CM Is p«p CO CO CO CM 

MP OS CO MP CO CO M» 

— co cm co » oe 



S CM CM CO 
is ■«■ CM 
CO CM p CO 



O O o — — 



CM CM CO CO M" 



MP WS WS CO CO 



cm ao 
is ao ao os os 



co co — < 

|s — — 



OS P Is — — CO CO 

— co p co cm ao O 

WS — 00 MP — Is IS 



Is CO 

P MP 

S3 



CM O CO CO 

us cm co rs 

Is |s COS CM 

CM — — CO 



O — — CM CO 



CO O IS WS 
— CM CM CO 



co — as is 

MP WS WS CO 



«0 MS rs OO O- 



2 = 222 22£2£ 8 S fl 8 3 8 8 ft S ft 8 S S, S g 8 S 8 



~s>Oa-)v\)cu »ii 



M- l-«J%J-T3 or 



Table of Contents for Two by Two Tables 

COMPETITION 

Funding: 

Planned by actual total competition value 1 

Structure: 

PI anned by actual structure 2 

PI anned structure by no. of entrants. 3 

Actual structure by no. of entrants 4 

Planned structure by total competition value 5 

Actual structure by total competition val ue 6 

Area of Design Concern: 

Planned by actual area of design concern 7 

Planned area of design concern by no. of entrants 8 

Actual area of design concern by no. of entrants 9 

Planned area of design concern by total competition value 10 

Actual are of design concern by total competition value 11 

Incentive: 

Planned approach by actual approach 12 

Planned approach by no. of entrants 13 

Actual approach by no. of entrants 14 

Planned approach by total competition value 15 

Actual approach by total competition value 16 

Planned incentive by actual incentive 17 

Planned incentive by approach 18 

Actual incentive by approach 19 

Planned incentive by structure 20 

Actual incentive by structure 21 

Planned incentive by area of design concern 22 

Actual incentive by area of design concern 23 

Planned incentive by no. of entrants 24 

Actual incentive by no. of entrants 25 

Planned by actual value of first place award 26 

PI anned val ue of award by approach 27 

Actual val ue of award by approach 28 

PI anned val ue of award by structure 29 

Actual val ue of award by structure 30 

Planned value of award by area of design concern 31 

Actual value of award by area of design concern .32 

Planned value of award by no. of entrants 33 

Actual value of award by no. of entrants 34 

Planned by actual total value of awards 35 

Planned total value of awards by approach 36 

Actual total value of awards by approach 37 

Planned total value of awards by structure 38 



Incentive : (con't) 

Actual total val ue of awards by structure 39 

Planned total value of awards by no. of entrants 40 

Actual total value of awards by no. of entrants ..41 

Planned total value of awards by area of design concern 42 

Actual total value of awards by area of design concern 43 

PI anned by actual number of pri zes 44 

Planned number of prizes by no. of entrants 45 

Actual number of prizes by no. of entrants 46 

Planned number of prizes by value of award 47 

Actual number of prizes by value of award 48 

Participation : 

Planned by actual amount of fee 49 

Planned fee by structure 50 

Actual fee by structure 51 

PI anned fee by approach 52 

Actual fee by approach 53 

Planned fee by area of design concern 54 

Actual fee by area of design concern 55 

PI anned fee by no. of entrants 56 

Actual fee by no. of entrants 57 

PI anned by actual types of publ i ci ty 58 

Planned types of publicity by publicity value 59 

Actual types of publicity by publicity value 60 

Planned total value of awards by types of publicity 61 

Actual total value of awards by types of publicity 62 

Planned by actual publicity value 63 

Planned total value of awards by publicity value 64 

Actual total value of awards by publicity value 65 

Planned publicity value by no. of entrants 66 

Actual publicity value by no. of entrants 6 7 

CHARRETTE 

Funding: 

Planned by actual total competition value 68 

Area of Design Concern: 

Planned by actual area of design concern 69 

Actual area of design concern by no. of entrants 70 

Incentive: 

Planned by actua" approach 7 1 

Actual approach by no. of entrants 72 

Planned by actual incentive 7.3 

Planned incentive by approach 74 

Actual incentive by approach 7 5 

Planned incentive by area of design concern 76 

Actual incentive by area of design concern 77 



Incentive : (con't) 

Actual incentive by no. of entrants • 7 8 

Planned by actual value of first place 79 

Planned value of award by approach ..80 

Actual value of award by approach 81 

Actual value of award by no. of entrants 82 

Planned value of award by area of design concern 83 

Actual value of award by area of design concern 84 

PI anned by actual total val ue of awards 85 

Planned total value of awards by approach 86 

Actual total val ue of awards by approach 87 

Actual total value of awards by no. of entrants 88 

Planned total value of awards by area of design concer 89 

Actual total value of awards by area of design concern 90 

PI anned by actual number of pri zes 91 

Actual number of prizes by no. of entrants 92 

Planned number of prizes by value of awa^d 93 

Actual number of prizes by value of award 94 

Participation : 

Planned by actual types of publicity 95 

Actual types of publicity by no. of entrants 96 

Actual types of publicity by no. of attendees 97 

Planned publicity value by types of publicity 98 

Actual publicity value by types of publicity ....99 

Actual publicity value by no. of entrants 100 

Actual publicity value by no. of attendees 101 



BY 



planned total competition value - (X Axis) 
actual total competition value - (Y Axis) 



Number 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % ] 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


: High 


I 

T 


Medium 


I 

T 


Low 


I 

T 


Total s 




[ 6 


I 





I 





I 






[ 100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


6 




[ 85.7 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


25.0 


High 


25.0 


I 
T 


0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 






[ 1 


I 


8 


I 


10.0 


I 






[ 10.0 


I 


80.0 


I 


11.1 


I 


10 




[ 14.3 


I 


100.0 


I 


4.2 


I 


41.7 


Medium 


[ 4.2 


I 

T 


33.3 


I 
T 




I 
T 






[ 


I 





I 


8 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


8 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


88.9 


I 


33.3 


Low 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


33.3 


I 

T 




Column 


[ 7 


I 


8 


I 


9 


I 


24 


Total s 


I 29.2 


I 


33.3 


I 


37.5 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 


= 37.71 


Valid cases ■ 24 


Degrees of freedom 


= 4 


Missing cases ■ 
Response rate = 100.0% 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



BY 



planned structure - (X Axis) 
actual structure - (Y Axis) 



Kuir.be r 
Row % 
Column % 
Total % 



Open One Stage 



Open Two Stage 



Restricted 



Charrette 



Invited 



Column 
Totals 



- Open * 


; Open 




I 








* One. 

1 Stage J 


Two 
- Stage ] 


■Restricted 1 Charrette J 

[ I ] 

C I ] 


; Invited ; 


[ Row 
[ Totals 


I 8 ] 


[ 1 ] 


[ 


X 

I 


] 


[ 3 




I 88.9 ] 


[ 11.1 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 3 


: 9 


I 88.9 ] 


[ 14.3 ] 


F 0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


r o.o 3 


45.0 


I 40.0 ] 


[ 5.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


C 0.0 ] 




I 1 ] 


[ 6 ] 


[ 


X 

I 


] 


[ l : 




I 12.5 ] 


[ 75.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


[ 32.5 3 


t 8 


I 11.1 ] 


[ 85.7 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


[ 100.0 ] 


[ 40.0 


I 5.0 ] 


[ 30.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


[ 5.0 




I ] 


C ] 


[ 3 


I 


] 


[ 3 




I 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 100.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


C 0.0 3 


3 


I 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 100.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


t 0.0 3 


[ 15.0 


i o.o : 


[ 0.0 3 


[ 15.0 


I 

-I- 

I 


0.0 3 


[ 0.0 3 




I c 


[ o : 


[ 


o : 


[ 3 




I 0.0 3 


t 0.0 ] 


r o.o 


] 


0.0 3 


f 0.0 3 





I 0.0] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 : 


[ 0.0 3 


[ 0.0 


I 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 

y 


o.o : 


[ 0.0 3 




1 


l o : 


[ 


I 


3 


L C 3 




i o.o : 


r c.o : 


r o.o 


I 


0.0 


[ 0.0 3 


[ 


i o.o : 


[ 0.0 


[ 0.0 


I 


o.o : 


[ 0.0 3 


[ 0.0 


I 0.0 


[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


t o.o : 




i 9 : 


l 7 : 


[ 3 


I 


o : 


t l : 


[ 20 


I 45.0 : 


[ 35.0 : 


[ 15.0 


I 


o.o : 


[ 5.0 ; 


[ 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



31.75 
6 



Valid cases = 20 
^J86ing cases = 4 
Response rate = 83.3 % 



Caution: 12 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 column & 2 rows not included in Chi square calculations 



BY 



planned structure - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number 


I 






I 






I 




J 




Row % 


I Open 


C Open 


I 






I 




I 




Column % 


I 


One ; 


[ Two 


IRestrictedl 


Charrettel 


Invited 


I 


Row 


Total % 


I Stage 


[ Stage 


I 






I 




I 


Totals 




I 


i : 


[ 3 


I 


I 





I 





I 






I 


25.0 : 


[ 75.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


4 


Hieh 


I 


11.1 : 


L 37.5 


I 


0.0 1 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


19.0 




I 


4.8 


[ 14.3 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 






I 


5 


L 2 


I 


2 I 





I 


1 


I 




Med iuT" 


I 


50.o : 


[ 20.0 


I 


20.0 I 


0.0 


I 


10.0 


I 


10 


* * *— \_i AUl>> 


I 


55.6 


[ 25.0 


I 


66.7 I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


47.6 




I 


23.8 : 


[ 9.5 


I 


9.5 I 


0.0 


I 


4.8 


I 






I 


3 : 


[ 3 


I 


1 I 





1 





I 




Low 


I 


42.9 : 


[ 42.9 


I 


14.3 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


7 


. 


I 


33.3 : 


[ 37.5 


I 


33.3 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


33.3 




I 


14.3 


[ 14.3 


I 


4.8 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 




Column 


I 


9 : 


I 8 


I 


3 I 





I 


1 


I 


21 


Totals 


I 


42.9 : 


I 38.1 


I 


14.3 I 


0.0 


I 


4.8 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



4.64 
6 



Valid cases = 21 
Missing cases ■ 3 
Response rate = 87.5 % 



Caution: 12 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 column not included in Chi square calculations 



BY 



actual structure - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number I 




[ 




I 




I 




£ 




I 




Row % I 


Open 


[ 


Open 


I 




1 




I 




I 




Column % I 


One 


I 


Two 


iRestrictedlCharrette I 


Invited 


I 


Row 


Total % I 


Stage 


I 


Stage 


I 




I 




I 




I 


Totals 







I 


4 


I 





I 





I 





I 




] 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


4 


High ] 


0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


19.0 




0.0 


I 


19.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 






: 5 


I 


3 


I 


2 


I 





I 





I 






[ 50.0 


I 


30.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


10 


Medium '. 


[ 50.0 


I 


37.5 


I 


66.7 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


47.6 




[ 23.8 


I 


14.3 


I 


9.5 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 






[ 5 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 





I 





I 






[ 71.4 


I 


14.3 


I 


14.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


7 


Low 


[ 50.0 


I 


12.5 


I 


33.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


33.3 




I 23.8 


I 


4.8 


I 


4.8 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 




Column 


I 10 


I 


8 


I 


3 


I 





I 





I 


21 


Totals 


I 47.6 


I 


38.1 


I 


14.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 



,Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



8.78 
4 



Valid cases = 21 
Missing cases = 3 
Response rate ■ 87.5 % 



Caution; 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 2 columns not included in Chi square calculations 



BY 



planned structure - (X Axis) 

planned total competition value - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 
Row % ] 
Column % ] 
Total % ] 


Open 
1 une 

c Stage 


j Open '. 
j Two 
y Stage 


! Restrict 


I 
edt 


Charrette, 


j InviteJ , 


[ 

[ Row 
[ Totals 


High 


[ 2 

[ 28.6 
[ 22.2 
[ 9.5 


i 4 : 

I 57.1 ] 
I 50.0 ] 

i 19.0 : 


[ 
[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 




] 

o.o : 

0.0 ] 

o.o : 


[ 1 ] 
[ 14.3 j 
[ 100.0 ] 
[ 4.8 


[ 7 
[ 33.3 


Med ium 


L 4 
[ 66.7 
[ 44.4 
[ 19.0 


I 1 ] 

I 16.7 ] 
I 12.5 ] 
I 4.8 ] 


[ 1 
[ 16.7 
[ 33.3 
[ 4.8 




o i 

0.0 ] 
0.0 ] 
0.0 ] 


[ ] 

[ 0.0 ] 
C 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


6 
[ 28.6 


Low ] 


[ 3 
[ 37.5 
[ 33.3 
[ 14.3 


I 3 ] 
I 37.5 ] 
I 37.5 ] 
I 14.3 ] 


[ 2 
C 25.0 
C 66.7 
[ 9.5 




] 
0.0 ] 
0.0 ] 
0.0 ] 


[ ] 
C 0.0 ] 
C 0.0 ] 
C 0.0 ] 


[ 8 
[ 38.1 


Column ] 
Totals ] 


[' 9 
[ 42.9 


I 8 ] 
I 38.1 ] 


[ 3 
[ 14.3 




] 
0.0 ] 


[ 1 ] 

[ 4.8 ] 


[ 21 
C 100.0 



Chi square = 6.23 

Degrees of freedom = 6 



Valid cases = 21 
Missing cases ■ 3 
Response rate = 87.5 % 



Caution: 12 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
tote: 1 column not included in Chi square calculations 



BY 



actual structure - (X Axis) 

actual total competition value - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 








I 








Row % ] 


; Open ] 


Open ] 




I 








Column % ] 


One ] 


Two j 


[Restrict 


edjCharrette j 


Invited ; 


[ Row 


Total % ] 


Stage ■ 


Stage ] 




I 






: Totals 




1 ] 


[ 5 3 





I 


I 


3 






: 16.7 ] 


: 83.3 3 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 1 


C 6 


High 3 


[ 8.3 1 


[ 62.5 3 


: o.o 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 3 


[ 26.1 


B 


4.3 ] 


C 21.7 3 


c 0.0 


I 


0.0 1 


0.0 ] 






[ 6 1 


[ 2 3 


[ l 


I 


I 


3 






[ 66.7 3 


[ 22.2 3 


[ n.i 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 3 


9 


Medium ■ 


[ 50.0 3 


[ 25.0 3 


[ 33.3 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 3 


[ 39.1 




[ 26.1 3 


C 8.7 3 


[ 4.3 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 3 






5 


[ 1 


[ 2 


I 


I 









: 62.5 : 


[ 12.5 : 


[ 25.0 


J 


0.0 I 


0.0 


[ 8 


Low 


C 41.7 : 


[ 12.5 : 


[ 66.7 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


[ 34.8 




[ 21.7 : 


[ 4.3 


[ 8.7 


I 


0.0 I 


o.o : 




Column ] 


[ 12 3 


c 8 : 


[ 3 


I 


I 


3 


[ 23 


Totals 3 


[ 52.2 3 


C 34.8 : 


[ 13.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 3 


t 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



= 9.270001 Valid cases = 23 
■ 4 Missing cases = 1 

Response rate ■ 95.8 % 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 2 columns not included in Chi square calculations 



BY 



planned area of design concern - (X Axis) 
actual area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number I I I I 

Row % I I I I 

Column % I _, It>t I t 3 ^^ 1 Row 

Total % I Idea I Plan I Project I Totals 

I II 1 1 

I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 

Idea I 50.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 4.5 

I 4.5 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 1 6 1 1 

I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 6 

Plan I 0.0 I 85.7 I 0.0 I 27.3 

I 0.0 I 27.3 I 0.0 I 

I II 1 I 13 I 

I 6.7 I 6.7 I 86.7 I 15 

Project I 50.0 I 14.3 I 100.0 I 68.2 

I 4.5 I 4.5 I 59.1 I 

Column I 2 1 7 I 13 I 22 

Totals I 9.1 I 31.8 I 59.1 I 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



= 27.86 
= 4 



Valid cases = 22 
Missing cases = 2 
Response rate = 91.7 % 



Caution: 8 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



BY 



planned area of design concern - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 




I 




I 




Row % ] 




I 




I 




I 




Column % ] 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


Idea 


I 


Plan 


j Project 


I 


Totals 




[ 1 


I 





I 


3 


X 

I 






l 25.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


75.0 


I 


4 


High ; 


[ 50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


23.1 


I 


19.0 




[ 4.8 


I 


0.0 


I 


14.3 


I 






[ 


I 


4 


I 


6 


I 




\t j j * 


[ 0.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


60.0 


I 


10 


Medium 


[ 0.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


46.2 


I 


47.6 




[ 0.0 


I 


19.0 


I 


28.6 


I 






[ 1 


I 


2 


I 


4 


I 






[ 14.3 


I 


28.6 


I 


57.1 


I 


7 


Low 


E 50.0 


I 


33.3 


I 


30.8 


I 


33.3 




[ 4.8 


I 


9.5 


I 


19.0 


I 




Column : 


[ 2 


I 


6 


I 


13 


I 


21 


Totals 


[ 9.5 


I 


28.6 


I 


61.9 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 3.86 

Degrees of freedom ■ 4 



Valid cases ■ 21 
Missing cases = 3 
Response rate ■ 87.5 % 



Caution: 8 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



8 



BY 



actual area of design concern - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 






I 




Row % ] 




I 






I 




Column % ] 




I 






I 


Row 


Total % ] 


Idea 


I 


Plan 


j Project 


I 


Totals 







I 





I 4 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 100.0 


I 


4 


High : 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 26.7 


I 


19.0 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 19.0 


I 






[ 


I 


3 


I 7 


I 




\i — j j " 


[ 0.0 


I 


30.0 


I 70.0 


I 


10 


Medium 


[ 0.0 


I 


60.0 


I 46.7 


I 


47.6 




[ 0.0 


I 


14.3 


I 33.3 


I 






[ 1 


I 


2 


I 4 


I 






[ 14.3 


I 


28.6 


I 57.1 


I 


7 


Low 


[ 100.0 


I 


40.0 


I 26.7 


I 


33.3 




[ 4.8 


I 


9.5 


I 19.0 


I 




Column : 


[ 1 


I 


5 


I 15 


I 


21 


Totals 


[ 4.8 


I 


23.8 


I 71.4 


I 


100.0 



Chi square ■ 3.84 

Degrees of freedom ■ 4 



Valid cases = 21 
Missing cases = 3 
Response rate ■ 87.5 



% 



Caution: 7 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



BY 



planned area of design concern - (X Axis) 
planned total competition value - (Y Axis) 



Number I I I I 

Row % I I I I 

Column % I T , I iii I „ I Row 

m i. -i ci ▼ Idea _ Plan _ Project _. _ , 

Total % I I I J I Totals 

I II 1 6 1 

I 14.3 I 0.0 I 85.7 I 7 

Hloh 1 50 *° 1 °«° * 42 - 9 * 30 - 4 

8 I 4.3 I 0.0 I 26.1 I 

I II 3 1 4 1 

I 12.5 I 37.5 I 50.0 I 8 

Medium i 50.0 I 42.9 I 28.6 I 34.8 

I 4.3 I 13.0 I 17.4 I 

I 1 4 1 4 1 

I 0.0 I 50.0 I 50.0 I 8 

. I 0.0 I 57.1 I 28.6 I 34.8 

I 0.0 I 17.4 I 17.4 I 

Column I 2 1 7 I 14 I 23 

Totals I 8.7 I 30.4 I 60.9 I 100.0 



Chi square = 5.36 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases = 23 
Missing cases = 1 
Response rate ■ 95.8 % 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



10 



BY 



actual area of design concern - (X Axis) 
actual total competition value - (Y Axis) 



Number 3 
Row % 

Column % 3 
Total % I 


; Idea 


\ Plan 


[ Project ; 


[ Row 
t Totals 


High \ 


[ l : 

[ 16.7 ] 
[ 100.0 ] 
[ 4.3 ] 


[ o : 
t o.o : 

C 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


[ 5 : 

C 83.3 ] 
[ 31.3 ] 
[ 21.7 3 


[ 6 

t 26.1 


Med ium 


[ ] 
C 0.0 ] 
t 0.0 ] 
t 0.0 3 


[ 3 ] 
[ 33.3 ] 
C 50.0 ] 
[ 13.0 : 


[ 6 3 
[ 66.7 3 
[ 37.5 3 
[ 26.1 3 


9 
[ 39.1 


Low 


[ ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
C 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


3 ] 
[ 37.5 ] 
: 50.0 ] 
[ 13.0 ] 


5 3 
[ 62.5 3 
C 31.3 3 
£ 21.7 3 


L 8 
[ 34.8 


Column ! 
Totals 


[ 1 
[ 4.3 : 


[ 6 : 
[ 26.1 


[ 16 
[ 69.6 


[ 23 
r 100.0 



Chi square ■ 5.21 

Degrees of freedom ■ 4 



Valid cases = 23 
Missing cases ■ 1 
Response rate = 95.8 % 



Caution: 7 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



11 



BY 



planned approach - (X Axis) 
actual approach - (Y Axis) 



Number I I I „ . I 

Row % I 1,1 Pr " e I 

Column % I I Commiss - T and Comm^ Row 

Total % I Prize i ion I ission j Tota ls 

I 7 1 1 1 

I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 7 

Prize j 7?#8 j 0#0 j .0 I 33.3 

I 33.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I II 2 1 II 

I 25.0 I 50.0 I 25.0 I 4 

Commission I 11.1 I 66.7 I 11.1 I 19.0 

I 4.8 I 9.5 I 4.8 I 

I II II 8 1 

Prize and I 10.0 I 10.0 I 80.0 I 10 

Commission I 11.1 I 33.3 I 88.9 I 47.6 

I 4.8 I 4.8 I 38.1 I 

Column I 91 31 91 21 

Totals I 42.9 I 14.3 I 42.9 I 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



19.36 
4 



Valid cases = 21 
Missing cases ■ 3 
Response rate = 87.5 % 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



12 



BY 



planned approach - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 




I 




I 




Row % ] 




I 




I Prize and 1 ! 




Column % ] 


Prize 


Commission I Commissioii 


Row 


Total % ] 




I 




I 




I 


Totals 




1 


I 





I 


3 


I 






[ 25.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


75.0 


I 


4 


High : 


[ 11.1 


I 


0.0 


I 


37.5 


I 


20.0 




[ 5.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


15.0 


I 






[ 4 


I 


1 


I 


5 


I 






[ 40.0 


I 


10.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


10 


Medium 


[ 44.4 


I 


33.3 


I 


62.5 


I 


50.0 




[ 20.0 


I 


5.0 


I 


25.0 


I 






[ 4 


I 


2 


I 





I 






[ 66.7 


I 


33.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


6 


T.nu ■ 


[ 44.4 


I 


66.7 


I 


0.0 


I 


30.0 


XjvW 


[ 20.0 


I 


10.0 


I 


0.0 


I 




Column 


r 9 


I 


3 


I 


8 


I 


20 


Totals 


[ 45.0 


I 


15.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


100.0 



.Chi square ■ 7.02 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases = 20 
Missing cases = 4 
Response rate ■ 83.3 % 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



13 



BY 



actual approach - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 




1 




*' 




Row % ] 




I 




"T-Prl-ze and 1 




Column % ] 


Prize 


ICommis s ion *C ommis sion * 


Row 


Total % ] 




I 




I 




t 


Totals 







I 


2 


I 


2 


I 




« 


: o.o 


I 


50.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


4 


High 3 


[ 0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


22.2 


I 


19.0 




[ 0.0 


I 


9.5 


I 


9.5 


I 






[ 3 


I 


1 


I 


6 


I 






[ 30.0 


I 


10.0 


I 


60.0 


I 


10 


Medium 


[ 37.5 


I 


25.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


47.6 




[ 14.3 


I 


4.8 


I 


28.6 


I 






[ 5 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 






C 71.4 


I 


14.3 


I 


14.3 


I 


7 


Low 


[ 62.5 


I 


25.0 


I 


11.1 


I 


33.3 




[ 23.8 


I 


4.8 


I 


4.8 


I 




Column 


[ 8 


I 


4 


I 


9 


I 


21 


Totals 


[ 38.1 


I 


19.0 


I 


42.9 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



8.32 
4 



Valid cases ■ 21 
Missing cases = 3 
Response rate = 87.5 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



14 



i 

a 
i 
I 
I 
i 
i 
i 

8 



BY 



planned approach - (X Axis) 

planned total competition value - (Y Axis) 



Number 3 








I 




I 




Row % 








I 


Prize ai 


ad 1 




Column % : 


Prize 


^Commission* 


Commiss 


ioi 


Row 


Total % 








I 




I 


Totals 




[ 2 




1 


I 


4 


I 






[ 28.6 




14.3 


I 


57.1 


I 


7 


High \ 


[ 22.2 




33.3 


I 


44.4 


I 


33.3 




[ 9.5 




4.8 


I 


19.0 


I 






[ 2 




2 


I 


2 


I 






[ 33.3 




33.3 


I 


33.3 


I 


6 


Medium 


[ 22.2 




66.7 


I 


22.2 


I 


28.6 




[ 9.5 




9.5 


I 


9.5 


I 






[ 5 







I 


3 


I 






[ 62.5 




0.0 


I 


37.5 


I 


8 


Low ] 


C 55.6 




0.0 


I 


33.3 


I 


38.1 




: 23.8 




0.0 


I 


14.3 


I 




Column : 


[ 9 


X 


3 


I 


9 


I 


21 


Totals 


[ 42.9 


T 


14.3 


I 


42.9 


I 


100.0 



I 



Chi square = 4.36 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases = 21 
Missing cases ■ 3 
Response rate ■ 87.5 % 



tf~aution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 

I 
I 
1 
I 

15 

I 



BY 



actual approach - (X Axis) 

actual total competition value - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 




I 




I 




Row % ] 




I 




I 




I 




Column % ] 




I 




j Prize and*j 


Row 


Total % 


Prize 


j Commissioq; ( 


^onnnissiorj 


Totals 




[ 2 


I 


1 


I 


3 


I 






[ 33.3 


I 


16.7 


I 


50.0 


I 


6 


High : 


t 25.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


27.3 


I 


26.1 




[ 8.7 


I 


4.3 


I 


13.0 


I 






[ 1 


I 


3 


I 


5 


I 






[ 11.1 


I 


33.3 


I 


55.6 


I 


9 


Medium '• 


[ 12.5 


I 


75.0 


I 


45.5 


I 


39.1 




C 4.3 


I 


13.0 


I 


21.7 


I 






C 5 


I 





I 


3 


I 






t 62.5 


I 


0.0 


I 


37.5 


I 


8 


Low • 


C 62.5 


I 


0.0 


I 


27.3 


I 


34.8 




[ 21.7 


I 


0.0 


I 


13.0 


I 




Column ] 


[ 8 


I 


4 


I 


11 


I 


23 


Totals ] 


C 34.8 


I 


17.4 


I 


47.8 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 6.22 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases = 23 
Kissing cases = 1 
Response rate = 95.8 % 



:aution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



16 



BY 



planned incentive - (X Axis) 
actual incentive - (Y Axis) 



Number I I I w I I 

ROW % I I r „ I Mo f tary j j 

Column % I M , I C °f ract "l and Con 7 I n fc I Row 

Total % 1 Monetar y I ual I factual j Other j Totals 

I 81 01 II 01 

I 88.9 I 0.0 I 11.1 I 0.0 I 9 

Monetary j 88#9 j Q# Q j 12#5 j 0#0 j 45 #Q 

I 40.0 I 0.0 I 5.0 I 0.0 I 

I II 01 II 01 

. I 50.0 I 0.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 2 

Contractual ij n>1 j Q#0 j 12#5 j ^ j 1Q#0 

I 5.0 I 0.0 I 5.0 I 0.0 I 

I 01 21 61 01 

Monetary and I CO I 25.0 I 75.0 I 0.0 I 8 

Contractual I 0.0 I 100.0 I 75.0 I 0.0 I 40.0 

I 0.0 I 10.0 I 30.0 I 0.0 I 

I 01 01 01 II 

Other I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 1 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 5.0 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 5.0 I 

Column I 91 21 81 II 20 

Totals I 45.0 I 10.0 I 40.0 I 5.0 I 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees ot rreedom 



34.69 
9 



Valid cases = 20 
Missing cases ■ 4 
Response rate = 83.3 



% 



Caution: 16 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



17 



BY 



planned incentive - (X Axis) 
planned approach - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 
Row % ] 
Column % ] 
Total % ] 


■Monetary • 


• Contract- ■ 
•ual 


• Monetary - 

• and Con- • 
• tractual • 


Other 


[ Row 
[ Totals 


Prize 


[ 7 ] 
t 77.8 ] 
[ 87.5 ] 
[ 36.8 ] 


[ 3 
t 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 


[ 1 ] 
[ 11.1 3 
[ 12.5 3 
[ 5.3 3 


[ 1 3 
t 11.1 3 
[ 100.0 3 
[ 5.3 3 


[ 9 
[ 47.4 


Commission 


[ 1 3 
[ 50.0 ] 
[ 12.5 3 
[ 5.3 3 


[ 1 3 
[ 50.0 3 
[ 50.0 3 
[ 5.3 3 


[ 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 


[ 3 
[ 0.0 3 
C 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 


[ 2 
[ 10.5 


Prize and 
Commission 


[ 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 


[ 1 3 
[ 12.5 3 
[ 50.0 3 
[ 5.3 3 


[ 7 3 
C 87.5 3 
t 87.5 3 
C 36.8 3 


t 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 


[ 8 
C 42.1 


Column 3 
Totals 


[ 8 
[ 42.1 3 


[ 2 
[ 10.5 3 


[ 8 3 
[ 42.1 3 


t i : 
c 5.3 : 


[ 19 
[ 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



17.97 
6 



Valid cases ■ 19 
Missing cases = 5 
Response rate = 79.2 % 



Caution: 12 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



18 



BY 



actual incentive - (X Axis) 
actual approach - (Y Axis) 



Number I I I I I 

ROW % I I I Monetary j j 

Column % I ! Contract- j and Con- j j Row 

Total % ^Monetary j ual j tractual j Other j Totals 

I 71 01 01 II 

I 87.5 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 12.5 I 8 

Prize I 70.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 34.8 

I 30.4 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 4.3 I 

I II 31 01 01 

I 25.0 I 75.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 4 

Commission I 10.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 17.4 

I 4.3 I 13.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 21 01 91 01 

I 18.2 I 0.0 I 81.8 I 0.0 I 11 

Prize and I 20.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 47.8 

Commission I 8.7 I 0.0 I 39.1 I 0.0 I 

Column I 10 I 31 91 II 23 

Totals I 43.5 I 13.0 I 39.1 I 4.3 I 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



= 31.44 
= 6 



Valid cases = 23 
Missing cases = 1 
Response rate = 95.8 % 



Caution: 12 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



19 



BY 



planned incentive - (X Axis) 
planned structure - (Y Axis) 



Number I I I M I I 

row % i Monetar y i 

rrt1nmn « T _ Contract- and Con- T _ _ tf 

lllll\ % jHon.t.ry J»al \ tractual \ Other J^, 

I 41 II 31 II 

Open One Stage J 44 ' 4 X 11 ' 1 * 33 - 3 X "-1 * 9 

F 8 I 50.0 I 50.0 I 37.5 I 100.0 I 47.4 

I 21.1 I 5.3 I 15.8 I 5.3 I 

I 21 01 41 01 

Open Two Stage X 33 « 3 1 ° • ° * 66 « 7 I 0.0 I 6 

v B I 25.0 I 0.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 31.6 

I 10.5 I 0.0 I 21.1 I 0.0 I 

I 21 01 II 01 

Restricted 1 66 - 7 1 °-° * 33 - 3 I 0.0 I 2 

I 25.0 I 0.0 I 12.5 I 0.0 I 15.8 

I 10.5 I 0.0 I 5.3 I 0.0 I 

I 01 01 01 01 

Charrette J 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 01 II 01 01 

Invited J °'° X 10 ° ^ I -° 1 «° 1 1 

I 0.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 5.3 

I 0.0 I 5.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

Column I 81 21 81 II 19 

Totals I 42.1 I 10.5 I 42.1 I 5.3 I 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



12.13 
9 



Valid cases = 19 
Missing cases = 5 
Response rate = 79.2 



% 



Caution: 16 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



20 





actual 


incentive - (X Axi 


is) 


■ 


• BY 


— 












actual 


structure - (Y Axj 


-s) 




Number ] 
Row % ] 
Column % ] 
Total % ] 


^Monetary , 


: Contract-i 

'. ual '. 


; Monetary 
! and Con- . 
! tractual . 


: Other : 


; row 

[ Totals 




: 6 ] 


[ ] 


[ 5 3 


L 1 3 




Open One Stage 


: 50.0 ] 

[ 60.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 3 


[ 41.7 3 
[ 55.6 3 


[ 8.3 3 
[ 100.0 3 


12 
[ 52.2 




26.1 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 21.7 3 


: 4.3 3 






[ 1 ] 


[ 3 3 


t 4 3 


[ 3 






[ 12.5 ] 


[ 37.5 3 


C 50.0 3 


C 0.0 3 


8 


Open Two Stage ; 


[ 10.0 ] 


[ 100.0 ] 


[ 44.4 3 


[ 0.0 3 


[ 34.8 




[ 4.3 ] 


[ 13.0 3 


[ 17.4 3 


[ 0.0 3 






[ 3 3 


[ ] 


[ 3 


[ 3 




Restricted 


[100.0 ] 
[ 30.0 ] 


[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 


t 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 


[ 0.0 3 
t 0.0 3 


C 3 
[ 13.0 




[ i3.o : 


[ 0.0 3 


[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 3 






[ 


[ ] 


[ ] 


[ 3 




Charrette ; 


C 0.0 

[ o.o : 


c o.o ; 
[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 3 
C 0.0 ] 


t 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 


[ 
[ 0.0 




[ o.o : 


[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 






[ o : 


C 


[ 3 


[ 3 






[ o.o : 


[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


[ 0.0 


[ 


Invited 


t 0.0 


[ o.o : 


c o.o : 


[ 0.0 


[ 0.0 




[ 0.0 


[ 0.0 


[ 0.0 


[ o.o : 




Column 3 


[ 10 


[ 3 


[ 9 : 


C 1 


[ 23 


Totals 3 


[ 43.5 : 


[ 13.0 : 


[ 39.1 : 


[ 4.3 : 


[ 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



= 12.06 
= 6 



Valid cases = 23 
Missing cases = 1 
Response rate ■ 95.8 



% 



Caution: 11 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 2 rows not included in Chi square calculations 



21 



BY 



planned incentive - (X Axis) 

planned area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 
Row % ] 


[ ; 


[ ] 

fcortract- • 


■ Monetary - 
• and Con- ■ 






Column % ] 
Total % ] 


■ Monetary ; 


i ual 


• tractual ■ 


• Other 


[ Row 
[ Totals 




[ 2 : 


[ ] 


[ ] 


[ ] 






[ 100.0 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 2 


Idea 


[ 25.0 : 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 10.5 




[ 10.5 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 






[ 4 


[ ] 


[ 2 : 


[ ] 




Plan 


[ 66.7 
[ 50.0 


[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


[ 33.3 ] 
[ 25.0 ] 


C 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


C 6 
[ 31.6 




[ 21.1 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 10.5 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 






[ 2 : 


[ 2 ] 


[ 6 ] 


[ 1 ] 




Project 


[ 18.2 
[ 25.0 : 


[ 18.2 ] 
[ 100.0 ] 


C 54.5 ] 
C 75.0 3 


[ 9.1 ] 

[ 100.0 ] 


11 
[ 57. S 




[ 10.5 : 


[ 10.5 ] 


[ 31.6 ] 


[ 5.3 ] 




Column ] 


c 8 : 


[ 2 ] 


[ 8 ] 


[ 1 ] 


[ 19 


Totals ] 


[ 42.1 : 


[ 10.5 ] 


[ 42.1 ] 


C 5.3 ] 


[ 100.0 



Chi square = 7.48 

Degrees of freedom = 6 



Valid cases = 19 
Missing cases = 5 
Response rate = 79.2 % 



Caution: 12 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



22 



BY 



actual incentive - (X Axis) 

actual area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 


1 




I 




I 




Row % ] 




I 


Contract-^ 


; Monetary 


I 




I 




Column % ] 
Total % ] 


;Ilonetary 


I 
I 


ual J 


and Con- 
; tractual 


I 
I 


Other 


I 
I 


Row 
Totals 




[ 1 


I 


] 





I 





I 




Id ea 


[ 100.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


1 




[ 10.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


L 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


4.3 




[ 4.3 


I 


0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 






[ 5 


I 


] 


[ 1 


I 





I 






[ 83.3 


I 


0.0 ] 


[ 16.7 


I 


0.0 


I 


6 


Plan 


[ 50.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


[ 11.1 


I 


0.0 


I 


26.1 




[ 21.7 


I 


0.0 ] 


[ 4.3 


I 


0.0 


I 






[ 4 


I 


3 : 


[ 8 


I 


1 


I 




• 


[ 25.0 


I 


18.8 ] 


C 50.0 


I 


6.3 


I 


16 


Project 


[ 40.0 


I 


100.0 ] 


[ 88.9 


I 


100.0 


I 


69.6 




[ 17.4 


I 


13.0 : 


[ 34.8 


I 


4.3 


I 




Column 


L 10 


I 


3 : 


[ 9 


I 


1 


I 


23 


Totals 


[ 43.5 


I 


13.0 : 


[ 39.1 


I 


4.3 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 7.58 

Degrees of freedom = 6 



Valid cases ■ 23 
Missing cases ■ 1 
Response rate = 95.8 % 



Caution: 10 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



23 



BY 



planned incentive - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number 3 
Row % ] 
Column % ] 
Total % ] 


[ Monetary '. 


I Contract- '. 
ual 


! Monetary '. 

'. and 3 

'. Contract-- 

ual '. 


[ Other 3 


[ Row 
[ Totals 


High 


[ 1 ] 
[ 25.0 ] 
[ 11.1 ] 
[ 5.0 ] 


[ ] 
t 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


1 3 3 
C 75.0 3 
[ 37.5 3 
[ 15.0 3 


[ 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 


4 
[ 20.0 


Medium ! 


[ 4 

[ 40.0 : 

[ 44.4 ] 
[ 20.0 ] 


c l : 
[ io.o : 

[ 50.0 3 
[ 5.0 3 


[ 5 : 

[ 50.0 I 
t 62.5 3 
[ 25.0 3 


[ 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 

[ 0.0 3 


[ 10 
[ 50.0 


Low I 


[ 4 ] 
C 66.7 ] 
[ 44.4 ] 
[ 20.0 ] 


[ 1 3 
[ 16.7 3 
[ 50.0 3 
[ 5.0 3 


[ ] 
C 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 


[ 1 3 
[ 16.7 3 
[ 100.0 3 
[ 5.0 3 


6 

[ 30. C 


Column 3 
Totals ] 


c 9 : 

[ 45.0 ] 


[ 2 : 

[ 10.0 3 


[ 8 : 

[ 40.0 3 


[ l : 

[ 5.0 3 


[ 20 
[ 100.0 



Chi square = 7.91 

Degrees of freedom = 6 



Valid cases ■ 20 
Missing cases ■ 4 
Response rate = 83.3 % 



Caution: 12 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



24 



BY 



actual incentive - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 
Row % ] 
Column % ] 
Total % ] 


• Monetary - 


Contract-- 
ual 


; Monetary ^ 

and 
; Contract-^ 

ual 


■ Other 


: row 

: Totals 


High : 


[ ] 

: o.o ] 

[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


[ 2 ] 
[ 50.0 ] 
[ 66.7 ] 
[ 9.5 ] 


[ 2 ] 
[ 50.0 ] 
[ 25.0 ] 
[ 9.5 ] 


[ ] 
t 0.0 1 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


4 
[ 19.0 


Med ium 


[ 5 : 
[ 50.0 : 

[ 55.6 : 
C 23.8 


c o : 
[ o.o : 
c o.o : 
c o.o : 


[ 5 : 
[ 50.0 ; 

[ 62.5 : 
[ 23.8 : 


[ ] 

c o.o : 

[ o.o : 

[ 0.0 ] 


C 10 
t 47.6 


Low 


[ 4 ] 
t 57.1 ] 
[ 44.4 I 
[ 19.0 


t l ; 

[ 14.3 ] 
[ 33.3 3 
[ 4.8 


[ 1 ] 

[ 14.3 ] 

[ 12.5 : 
[ 4.8 : 


t l : 

[ 14.3 ] 
[ 100.0 ] 
[ 4.8 


[ 7 
t 33.3 


Column : 
Totals : 


[ 9 
[ 42.9 : 


[ 3 
[ 14.3 : 


[ 8 

[ 38.1 : 


t 1 
C 4.8 : 


t ?1 
[ 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



= 10.72 
= 6 



Valid cases = 21 
Missing cases ■ 3 
Response rate = 87.5 % 



Caution: 12 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



25 



BY 



planned value of award - (X Axis) 
actual value of award - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


i High 


I 

T 


Medium 


I 

T 


Low 


I 

T 


Total s 




[ 2 


I 


1 


I 





I 






[ 66.7 


I 


33.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


3 




[ 100.0 


I 


10.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


17.6 


High 


[ 11.8 


I 

T 


5.9 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 
T 






[ 


I 


8 


I 





I 






[ 0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


8 




[ 0.0 


I 


80.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


47.1 


Medium 


[ 0.0 


I 
T 


47.1 


I 
T 


0.0 


I 

T 






[ 


I 


1 


I 


5 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


16.7 


I 


83.3 


I 


6 




[ 0.0 


I 


10.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


35.3 


Low 


[ 0.0 


I 
T 


5.9 


I 

T 


29.4 


I 

T 




Col umn 


I 2 


I 


10 


I 


5 


I 


17 


Totals 


I 11.8 


I 


58.8 


I 


29. A 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 22.95 

Degrees of freedom ■ 4 



Valid cases ■ 17 
Missing cases ■ 7 
Response rate - 70.8% 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



26 



BY 



planned value of award - (X Axis) 
planned approach - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 






I 




Row % ] 




I 






I 




Column % ] 


High 


I 


Medium 


*■ Lov 


I 


Row 


Total % ] 


» w 


I 






I 


Totals 







I 


4 


I 3 


I 




Prize 


[ 0.0 


I 


57.1 


I 42.9 


I 


7 




[ 0.0 


I 


40.0 


I 75.0 


I 


43.8 




[ 0.0 


I 


25.0 


I 18.8 


I 






[ 1 


I 


2 


I o 


I 




Commission 


[ 33.3 


I 


66.7 


I 0.0 


I 


3 




C 50.0 


I 


20.0 


I 0.0 


I 


18.8 




[ 6.3 


I 


12.5 


I 0.0 


I 






[ 1 


I 


4 


I 1 


I 






[ 16.7 


I 


66.7 


I 16.7 


I 


6 


Prize and 


[ 50.0 


I 


40.0 


I 25.0 


I 


37.5 


Commission 


[ 6.3 


I 


25.0 


I 6.3 


I 




Column 


[ 2 


I 


10 


I 4 


I 


16 


Totals 


[ 12.5 


I 


62.5 


I 25.0 


I 


100.0 



Chi square ■ 3.86 

Degrees of freedom ■ 4 



Valid cases ■ 16 
Missing cases = 8 
Response rate ■ 66.7 % 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



27 



BY 



actual value of award - (X Axis) 
actual approach - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 






I 




I 




Row % ] 






I 




I 




Column % ] 






I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


High 3 


Medium 


I 


Low 


I 


Totals 




[ 1 1 


: 3 


I 


4 


I 






[ 12.5 ] 


[ 37.5 


I 


50.0 


I 


8 


Prize 


[ 20.0 3 


[ 25.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


34.8 




t 4.3 ] 


[ 13.0 


I 


17.4 


I 






[ 1 ] 


[ 1 


I 


2 


I 






[ 25.0 J 


[ 25.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


4 


Commission ' 


[ 20.0 : 


[ 8.3 


I 


33.3 


I 


17.4 




[ 4.3 


[ 4.3 


I 


8.7 


I 






[ 3 


C 8 


I 





I 






[ 27.3 


[ 72.7 


I 


0.0 


I 


11 


Prize and 


[ 60.0 


[ 66.7 


I 


0.0 


I 


47.8 


Commission 


[ 13.0 


[ 34.8 


I 


0.0 


I 




Column 


[ 5 


r 12 


I 


6 


I 


23 


Totals 


i 21.7 : 


[ 52.2 


I 


26.1 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 7.77 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases = 23 
Missing cases = 1 
Response rate = 95.8 



% 



Caution: 8 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



28 



BY 



planned value of award - (X Axis) 
planned structure - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 










Row % 3 










Column % ] 








: Row 


Total % ] 


: High 


Medium \ 


[ Low ] 


: Totals 




[ 1 ] 


[ 7 I 


[ 1 3 




Open One Stage 


[ 11.1 ] 

[ 50.0 ] 


[ 77.8 : 
[ 70.0 I 


[ 11.1 ] 

[ 25.0 : 


9 
[ 56.3 




[ 6.3 ] 


[ 43.8 


[ 6.3 ] 






[ ] 


[ 3 : 


[ i : 




Open Two Stage 


C 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


[ 75.0 : 

c 30.0 : 


[ 25.0 : 
[ 25.0 


[ 4 
[ 25.0 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ 18.8 


[ 6.3 : 






[ ] 


[ ] 


t 2 : 




Restricted 


[ 0.0 ] 
C 0.0 ] 


C 0.0 ] 

[ o.o : 


c ioo.o : 
[ 50.0 : 


[ 2 
[ 12.5 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ o.o : 


[ 12.5 : 






C ] 


[ ] 


[ o : 




Charrette 


C 0.0 ] 

[ o.o : 


c o.o : 
[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


[ 
[ CO 




[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


[ o.o : 






t l : 


[ o : 


[ 




Invited 


[ ioo.o : 

[ 50.0 


c 0.0 

t o.o : 


[ 0.0 
C 0.0 


[ 1 

[ 6.3 




[ 6.3 


[ o.o : 


C 0.0 




Column 3 


[ 2 


[ 10 : 


[ 4 


[ 16 


Totals : 


[ 12.5 : 


[ 62.5 : 


[ 25.0 


[ 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



14.64 
6 



Valid cases = 16 
Missing cases = 8 
Response rate = 66.7 % 



Caution: 11 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



29 



BY 



actual value of award - (X Axis) 
actual structure - (Y Axis) 



Number I I I I 

Row % I I I I 

Column % I I I I Row 

Total % I High I Medium I Low I Totals 

I 2 1 8 1 2 1 

I 16.7 I 66.7 I 16.7 I 12 

Open One Staee I 40.0 I 66.7 I 33.3 I 52.2 

I 8.7 I 34.8 I 8.7 I 

I 3 1 3 1 2 1 

I 37.5 I 37.5 I 25.0 I 8 

Open Two Stage j 60#0 j 25 Q j 33#3 j 34#g 

I 13.0 I 13.0 I 8.7 I 

I 1 II 2 1 

I 0.0 I 33.3 I 66.7 I 3 

Restricted j 0#0 j g#3 j 33#3 j 13>() 

I 0.0 I 4.3 I 8.7 I 

I 1 1 1 

_. I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

Cnarrette j Q ^ z Q #Q j 0#0 j Q() 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 1 1 1 

T ^ I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

Invited x 0<0 x 0Q x 0Q j Q ^ 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

Column I 5 1 12 I 6 1 23 

Totals I 21.7 I 52.2 I 26.1 I 100.0 



Chi square = 5.03 

Degrees of freedom =■ 4 



Valid cases = 23 
Missing cases = 1 
Response rate = 95.8 % 



Caution: 8 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 2 rows not included in Chi square calculations 



30 



BY 



planned value of award - (X Axis) 
planned area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 






I 




I 




Row % ] 






I 




I 




Column % ] 






I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


: High : 


Medium 


I 


Low 


I 


Totals 




[ ] 


[ 1 


I 


1 


I 






[ 0.0 ] 


[ 50.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


2 


Idea 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 10.0 


I 


25. r 


I 


12.5 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ 6.3 


I 


6.3 


I 






[ ] 


[ 3 


I 


2 


I 






C 0.0 ] 


[ 60.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


5 


Plan 


C 0.0 I 


[ 30.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


31.3 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ 18.8 


I 


12.5 


I 






t 2 : 


[ 6 


I 


1 


I 






C 22.2 : 


[ 66.7 


I 


11.1 


I 


9 


Project 


[ ioo.o : 


C 60.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


56.3 




[ 12.5 : 


[ 37.5 


I 


6.3 


I 




Column : 


c 2 : 


[ 10 


I 


4 


I 


16 


Totals : 


[ 12.5 : 


[ 62.5 


I 


25.0 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of 



freedom 



= 3.28 
= 4 



Valid cases = 16 
Missing cases = 8 
Response rate = 66.7 



% 



Caution: 8 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



31 



BY 



actual value of award - (X Axis) 

actual area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 
Row % ] 
Column % ] 
Total % 3 


: High : 


Medium " 


Low 


[ Row 
[ Totals 


Idea ; 


[ 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 


[ ] 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 


[ 1 3 
[ 100.0 3 
[ 16.7 3 
[ 4.3 3 


: l 

4.3 


Plan : 


[ o : 

[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 


[ 4 3 
[ 66.7 3 
[ 33.3 3 
[ 17.4 3 


[ 2 3 
[ 33.3 3 
[ 33.3 3 
[ 8.7 3 


: 6 

[ 26.1 


Project ; 


[ 5 ] 
C 31.3 3 
[ 100.0 3 
[ 21.7 3 


[ 8 3 
[ 50.0 3 
[ 66.7 3 
[ 34.8 3 


[ 3 3 

[ 18.8 : 
[ 50.0 : 
[ 13.0 : 


[ 16 
[ 69.6 


Column ] 
Totals ] 


[ 5 3 
t 21.7 3 


[ 12 3 
[ 52.2 3 


c 6 : 
[ 26.1 : 


[ 23 
[ 100.0 



Chi square = 5.51 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases = 
Missing cases = 
Response rate = 



23 
1 
95.8 % 



Caution: 8 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



32 



I 
I 
I 

I 



BY 



planned value of award - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number 1 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % ] 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


[ High 


I 

T 


Medi um 


I 

T 


Low 


I 

T 


Total s 




[ 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


2 




I 0.0 


I 


10.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


11.8 


Hi gh 


[ 0.0 


I 
T 


5.9 


I 

T 


5.9 


I 
T 






[ 2 


I 


5 


I 


1 


I 






[ 25.0 


I 


62.5 


I 


12.5 


I 


8 




[ 100.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


47.1 


Medi um 


[ 11.8 


I 
T 


29.4 


I 
T 


5.9 


I 
T 






[ 


I 


4 


I 


3 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


57.1 


I 


42.9 


I 


7 




[ 0.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


60.0 


I 


41.2 


Low 


[ 0.0 


I 
T 


23.5 


I 
T 


17.6 


I 

T 




Col umn 


[ 2 


I 


10 


I 


5 


I 


17 


Totals 


I 11. R 


I 


58.8 


I 


29.4 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 


= 


3.79 


Valid cases = 17 


Degrees of freedom 


= 


4 


Missing cases = 7 
Response rate = 70.8% 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



33 



p 



\ 



BY 



actual value of award - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % ] 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


[ High 


I 

T 


Medium 


I 

T 


Low 


I 

T 


Total s 




I 2 


I 





I 


2 


I 






[ 50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


4 




[ 40.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


33.3 


I 


19.0 


Hi gh 


[ 9.5 


I 
T 


0.0 


I 
T 


9.5 


I 

T 






[ 2 


I 


7 


I 


1 


I 






[ 20.0 


I 


70.0 


I 


10.0 


I 


10 




I 40.0 


I 


70.0 


I 


16.7 


I 


47.6 


Medi urn 


[ 9.5 


I 
T 


33.3 


I 

T 


4.8 


I 

T 






[ 1 


I 


3 


I 


3 


I 






[ 14.3 


I 


42.9 


I 


42.9 


I 


7 




[ 20.0 


I 


30.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


33.3 


Low 


[ 4.8 


I 
T 


14.3 


I 

T 


14.3 


I 

T 




Col umn ] 


[ 5 


I 


10 


I 


6 


I 


21 


Total s 


I 23.8 


I 


47.6 


I 


28.6 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 


s 


6.81 


Valid cases = 21 


Degrees of freedom 


~ 


4 


Missing cases = 3 
Response rate ■ 87.5% 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



34 



I 



i 



BY 



planned total value of awards - (X Axis) 
actual total value of awards - (Y Axis) 



Number 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


: High 


I 

T 


Medium 


I 

T 


Low 


I 

T 


Total s 




[ 3 


I 


2 


I 





I 






[ 60.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


5 




[ 100.0 


I 


18.2 


I 


0.0 


I 


26.3 


High 


[ 15.8 


I 


10.5 


I 


0.0 


I 






[ 


I 


8 


I 





I 






[ 0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


8 




[ 0.0 


I 


72.7 


I 


0.0 


I 


42.1 


Medium ! 


[ 0.0 


I 
T 


42.1 


I 
T 


0.0 


I 
T 






[ 


I 


1 


I 


5 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


16.7 


I 


83.3 


I 


6 




[ 0.0 


I 


9.1 


I 


100.0 


I 


31.6 


Low 


[ 0.0 


I 
T 


5.3 


I 

T 


26.3 


I 




Column 


[ 3 


I 


11 


I 


5 


I 


19 


Total s 


I 15.8 


I 


57.9 


I 


26.3 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 


= 23.72 


Valid cases = 19 


Degrees of freedom 


= 4 


Missing cases ■ 5 
Response rate s 79.2% 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



35 



1 

p 



i 



BY 



planned total value of awards - (X Axis) 
planned approach - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 








I 




Row % ] 








I 




Column % ] 
Total % ] 


1 High ] 


; Med ium ; 


Low 


I 
I 


Row 
Totals 




: o ] 


[ 5 3 


[ 3 


I 




Prize ; 


[ 0.0 ] 

C 0.0 ] 


[ 62.5 ] 
[ 50.0 ] 


[ 37.5 
[ 75.0 


I 
I 


8 
47.1 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ 29.4 ] 


[ 17.6 


I 






t 2 ] 


[ 1 ] 


[ 


I 




Commission ■ 


[ 66.7 ] 
[ 66.7 ] 


[ 33.3 ] 
[ 10.0 ] 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 
I 


3 
17.6 




[ 11.8 ] 


t 5.9 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 






t i : 


[ 4 ] 


[ 1 


I 




Prize and 
Commission 


[ 16.7 : 
[ 33.3 : 
C 5.9 : 


[ 66.7 : 
t 40.0 ] 
[ 23.5 


[ 16.7 
C 25.0 
[ 5.9 


I 
I 

I 


6 
35.3 


Column '. 


[ 3 


[ 10 


[ 4 


I 


17 


Totals 


[ 17.6 


[ 58.8 : 


[ 23.5 


I 


100.0 



Chi square ■ 7.4 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases = 17 
Missing cases = 7 
Response rate = 70.8 % 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



36 



p 

9 



i 



BY 



actual total value of awards - (X Axis) 
actual approach - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 










Row % ] 










Column % ] 








[ Row 


Total % ] 


: High : 


. Medium 


Low 


[ Totals 




[ 1 ] 


[ 3 ] 


: 4 ] 




Prize ! 


[ 12.5 ] 
[ 14.3 ] 


[ 37.5 ] 
[ 30.0 ] 


[ 50.0 ] 
C 66.7 ] 


[ 8 
[ 34.8 




[ 4.3 ] 


[ 13.0 ] 


f 17.4 ] 






[ 2 : 


[ 1 ] 


£ l : 




Commission 


[ 50.0 ] 
[ 28.6 ] 


[ 25.0 ] 
[ 10.0 ] 


l 25.0 ] 
E 16.7 : 


4 
t 17.4 




[ 8.7 ] 


[ 4.3 ] 


C 4.3 ] 






[ 4 : 


[ 6 ] 


I 1 ] 




Prize and 

Commission ' 


[ 36.4 ] 
[ 57.1 ] 
[ 17.4 ] 


[ 54.5 ] 
[ 60.0 ] 
[ 26.1 ] 


[ 9.1 ] 
t 16.7 ] 
I 4.3 ] 


: 11 
[ 47.8 


Column : 


[ 7 : 


[ io : 


[ 6 : 


[ 23 


Totals 


[ 30.4 : 


[ 43.5 ] 


C 26.1 J 


[ 100.0 



Chi square ■ 5.13 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases = 23 
Missing cases ■ 1 
Response rate = 95.8 % 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



37 



i 

p 
p 
p 

I 



BY 



planned total value of awards - (X Axis) 
planned structure - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 










Row % ] 










Column % ] 








I Row 


Total % ] 


: High ] 


'. Medium '. 


Low 


I Totals 




1 ] 


: 6 ] 


C 2 




Open One Stage 3 


: 11.1 ] 


: 66.7 ] 


[ 22.2 


I 9 




[ 25.0 ] 


: 60.0 ] 


[ 50.0 


I 50.0 




[ 5.6 ] 


33.3 ] 


[ 11.1 






: 2 ] 


[ 3 ] 


[ 1 






C 33.3 ] 


C 50.0 ] 


[ 16.7 


I 6 


Open Two Stage '. 


: 50.0 ] 


[ 30.0 ] 


[ 25.0 


I 33.3 




C 11.1 ] 


C 16.7 ] 


[ 5.6 






[ ] 


[ 1 ] 


[ 1 






[ 0.0 ] 


[ 50.0 ] 


[ 50.0 


I 2 


Restricted ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 10.0 ] 


[ 25.0 


I 11.1 




[ 0.0 ] 


C 5.6 ] 


[ 5.6 






[ ] 


e o : 


[ 






[ 0.0 ] 


[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 


Charrette 


C 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


[ 0.0 


I 0.0 




[ 0.0 ] 


t o.o : 


[ 0.0 






[ i : 


[ 


[ 






c ioo.o : 


[ 0.0 


[ 0.0 


I 1 


Invited ; 


[ 25.0 : 


[ 0.0 


[ 0.0 


I 5.6 




[ 5.6 


[ 0.0 


[ 0.0 




Column : 


[ 4 


[ 10 


[ 4 


I 18 


Totals : 


[ 22.2 


[ 55.6 


[ 22.2 


I 100.0 



Chi square = 5.8 

Degrees of freedom ■ 6 



Valid cases = 18 
Missing cases = 6 
Response rate ■ 75.0 % 



Caution: 11 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



38 



i 
i 



BY 



actual total value of awards - (X Ax*s) 
actual structure - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 










Row % ] 










Column % ] 








[ ROW 


Total % ] 


: High : 


- Medium ■ 


Low 


[ Totals 




; 2 : 


c 6 : 


[ 4 ] 




Open One Stage . 


16.7 

; 28.6 : 


t 50.0 : 
t 60.0 ; 


[ 33.3 ] 
[ 66.7 ] 


12 
C 52.2 




8.7 


[ 26.1 3 


[ 17.4 ] 






c 5 : 


[ 2 ] 


[ 1 ] 




Open Two Stage . 


C 62.5 : 

[ 71.4 : 


[ 25.0 ] 
[ 20.0 ] 


[ 12.5 ] 
[ 16.7 ] 


8 
[ 34.8 




[ 21.7 


[ 8.7 ] 


[ 4.3 ] 






: o : 


[ 2 ] 


[ 1 ] 




Restricted : 


[ 0.0 

[ o.o : 


C 66.7 ] 
[ 20.0 ] 


[ 33.3 ] 
C 16.7 ] 


3 
[ 13.0 




[ 0.0 


[ 8.7 ] 


L 4.3 ] 






[ 


I ] 


[ ] 




Charrette 


[ 0.0 . 
[ 0.0 


I 0.0 ] 
I 0.0 ] 


CI 0.0] 
C 0.0 ] 



[ 0.0 




[ 0.0 


I 0.0 ] 


C 0.0 ] 






[ 


I ] 


c o : 




Invited ; 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 0.0 ] 
I 0.0 ] 


c o.o : 
[ o.o : 


E 
[ 0.0 




[ 0.0 


I 0.0 ] 


[ o.o : 




Column 


[ 7 


I 10 ] 


: 6 


[ 23 


Totals 


[ 30.4 


I 43.5 ] 


26.1 : 


[ 100.0 



Chi square = 6.34 

Degrees of freedom ■ 4 



Valid cases = 23 
Missing cases = 1 
Response rate = 95.8 % 



Caution: 8 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 2 rows not included in Chi square calculations 



39 



p 

I 
I 



BY 



planned total value of awards - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number 1 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % } 


! High 


I 

T 


Medium 


I 

T 


Low 


I 

T 


Total s 




i 


I 


2 


I 





I 






[ 0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


2 




[ 0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


10.5 


High 


[ 0.0 


I 

T 


10.5 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 






[ 2 


I 


5 


I 


2 


I 






[ 25.0 


I 


55.6 


I 


22.2 


I 


9 




I 50.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


47.4 


Medium 


[ 10.5 


I 


26.3 


I 


10.5 


I 






[ 2 


I 


3 


I 


3 


I 






I 22.2 


I 


37.5 


I 


37.5 


I 


8 




[ 50.0 


I 


30.0 


I 


60.0 


I 


42.1 


Low 


r io.5 


I 

T 


15.8 


I 


15.8 


I 
T 




Col umn 


r 4 


I 


10 


I 


5 


I 


19 


Total s 


I 21.1 


I 


52.6 


I 


26.3 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



2.66 



= 4 



Valid cases = 19 
Missing cases ■ 5 
Response rate - 79 .2% 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



40 



p 

I 

I 
I 
I 
I 



BY 



actual total value of awards - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number 1 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % ] 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


[ High 


I 


Medium 


I 


Low 


I 

T 


Totals 




: 2 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 






[ 50.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


4 




[ 28.6 


I 


16.7 


I 


12.5 


I 


19.0 


Hi gh 


[ 9.5 


I 

T 


4.8 


I 

T 


4.8 


I 

T 






[ 3 


I 


5 


I 


2 


I 






[ 30.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


10 




[ 42.9 


I 


62.5 


I 


33.3 


I 


47.6 


Medium 


[ 14.3 


I 


23.8 


I 


9.5 


I 






I 2 


I 


2 


I 


3 


I 






[ 28.6 


I 


28.6 


I 


42.9 


I 


7 




[ 28.6 


I 


25.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


33.3 


Low 


[ 9.5 


I 

T 


9.5 


I 

T 


14.3 


I 

T 




Col umn 


I 7 


I 


8 


I 


6 


I 


21 


Totals 


I 33.3 


I 


38.1 


I 


28.6 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



1.9 
4 



Valid cases = 21 
Missing cases = 3 
Response rate = 87.5% 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected freauency less than 5 



41 



p 

i 
p 



i 



BY 



planned total value of awards - (X Axis) 
planned area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 








I 




Row % ] 








I 




Column % ] 








I 


Row 


Total % ] 


: High : 


'. Medium 


I Low 


I 


Totals 




[ ] 


[ 2 


I 


I 




Idea ' 


[ 0.0 ] 


C 100.0 


I 0.0 


I 


2 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ 18.2 


I 0.0 


I 


10.5 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ 10.5 


I 0.0 


I 






[ ] 


[ 1 


I 4 


I 




Plan 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 20.0 


I 80.0 


I 


5 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ 9.1 


I 100.0 


I 


26.3 




[ 0.0 


[ 5.3 


I 21.1 


I 






[ 4 : 


[ 8 


I 


I 




Project 


[ 33.3 : 


[ 66.7 


I 0.0 


I 


12 




c ioo.o : 


[ 72.7 


I 0.0 


I 


63.2 




[ 21.1 


[ 42.1 


I 0.0 


I 




Column : 


[ 4 


[ 11 


I 4 


I 


19 


Totals 


[ 21.1 


[ 57.9 


I 21.1 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



= 15.54 
= 4 



Valid cases = 19 
Missing cases = 5 
Response rate = 79.2 % 



Caution: 8 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



42 



p 

p 



BY 



actual total value of awards - (X Axis) 
actual area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number 3 
Row % ] 
Column % ] 
Total % ] 


: High : 


Med ium I 


Low 


[ Row 
[ Totals 


Idea \ 


[ ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


[ 1 J 
[ 100.0 ] 
[ 10.0 ] 
[ 4.3 ] 


[ o : 
[ o.o : 

[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


[ 1 
[ 4.3 


Plan : 


[ ] 

[ 0.0 ] 
C 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


[ 3 ] 
[ 50.0 ] 
[ 30.0 ] 
[ 13.0 ] 


[ 3 : 

[ 50.0 ] 
[ 50.0 ] 
[ 13.0 ] 


[ 6 
[ 26.1 


Project 1 


[ 7 : 

[ 43.8 ] 
[ 100.0 ] 
[ 30.4 


[ 6 ] 

[ 37.5 ] 
[ 60.0 ] 
[ 26.1 ] 


[ 3 : 

[ 18.8 ] 
[ 50.0 ] 
[ 13.0 ] 


[ 16 
[ 69.6 


Column ] 
Totals ] 


[ 7 ] 
[ 30.4 ] 


[ 10 I 
[ 43.5 ] 


[ 6 : 
[ 26.1 ] 


[ 23 
[ 100.0 



Chi square ■ 5.89 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases ■ 23 
Missing cases = 1 
Response rate = 95.8 



Caution: 8 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



43 



BY 



planned number of prizes - (X Axis) 
actual number of prizes - (Y Axis) 



Number 1 




I 




I 




I 




I 


I 




I 




I 




Row I 1 




I 




I 




I 




I 


I 




I 




I 




Column % 1 




I 




I 




I 




I 


I 




I 




I Row 


Total 1 I 


1 


I 


3 


I 


5 


I 


8 


I 


13 I 


14 


I 


27 


I Totals 
































1 1 


1 


I 





I 


1 


I 





I 


I 





I 





I 






50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


2 




100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


14.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


11.8 




5.9 


I 


0.0 


I 


5.9 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 




2 1 





I 


1 


I 





I 





I 


I 





I 





I 






0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


1 




0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


5.9 




0.0 


I 


5.9 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 









I 


2 


I 





I 





I 


I 





I 





.1 




3 ] 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


2 




0.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


11.8 




0.0 


I 


11.8 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 









I 


1 


I 


3 


I 





I 


I 





I 





I 




5 ] 


0.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


75.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


4 




0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


42.9 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


23.5 




0.0 




5.9 


I 


17.6 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 




0.0 


I 









I 





I 


1 


I 





I 


I 





I 





I 




6 ] 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


1 




0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


14.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


5.9 




0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


5.9 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 









I 


1 


I 


1 


I 





I 


I 





I 





I 




7 


[ 0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


2 




[ 0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


14.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


11.8 




[ 0.0 


I 


5.9 


I 


5.9 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 









I 





I 





I 


1 


I 


I 





I 





I 




8 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


1 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


5.9 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


5.9 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 
I- 


0.0 


I 
I- 






t 


I 





I 





I 





I 


I 





I 





I 




10 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 







[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 




I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 






[ 


I 





I 


1 


I 





I 


1 I 





I 





I 




13 


I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


50.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


2 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


14.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


11.8 




I 0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 


5.9 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T — 


5.9 I 
.«.__! _ 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 

_T_ 






I 


I 





I 





I 





I 


I 


1 


I 





I 




14 


I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


1 




I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


5.9 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 






I 


I 





I 





I 





I 


I 





I 





I 




15 


I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 







I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 




I 0.0 


I- 


0.0 


I 
I- 


0.0 


I 
I- 


0.0 


I 
I- 


0.0 I 

I- 


0.0 


I- 


0.0 


I 
I- 






I 


I 





I 





I 





I 


I 





I 





I 




25 


I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 







I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 




I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 






I 


I 





I 





I 





I 


I 





I 


1 


I 




27 


I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


1 




I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


5.9 




I 0.0 


I 
I- 


0.0 


I 
I- 


0.0 


I 
I- 


0.0 


I 
I" 


0.0 I 

I- 


0.0 


I 


5.9 


I 




Col urn 


T 1 


I 


5 


I 


7 


I 


1 


I 


1 I 


1 


I 


1 


I 


17 


Totals 


I 5.9 


I 


29.4 


I 


41.2 


I 


5.9 


I 


5.9 I 


5.9 


I 


5.9 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 


- 75.28 


Valid cases - 17 


Degrees of freedom 


- 54 


Missing cases ■ 7 
Response rate ■ 70.8% 



44 



Caution: 70 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 3 rows not Included 1n Ch1 square calculations 



^■^■■■H 



BY 



planned number of prizes - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % 


i 1 


I 

T 


3 


I 

T 


5 


I 

T 


8 


I 
T-- 


13 


I 
T 


14 


I 

T 


27 


I 

T 


Total s 




[ 


I 





I 


2 


I 





I 





I 


1 


I 





I 






[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


33.3 


I 


0.0 


I 






I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


28.6 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


17.6 


High ! 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


11.8 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


5.9 


I 


0.0 


I 






[ 1 


I 


2 


I 


4 


I 





I 


1 


I 





I 





I 






[ 12.5 


I 


25.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


12.5 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


H 




[ 100.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


57.1 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


47.1 


Medium 


[ 5.9 


I 


11.8 


I 


23.5 


I 


0.0 


I 


5.9 


I 




I 


0.0 


I 








T 




T 




T 




T-- 




T 














[ 


I 


3 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 





I 





I 


1 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


16.7 


I 


16.7 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


16.7 


I 


t 




[ 0.0 


I 


60.0 


I 


14.3 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


35.: 


Low 


[ 0.0 


I 

T 


17.6 


I 

T 


5.9 


I 
T 


5.9 


I 


0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 
T 


5.9 


I 




Col umn 


[ 1 


I 


5 


I 


7 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 


i: 


Totals : 


[ 5.9 


I 


29.4 


I 


41.2 


I 


5.9 


I 


5.9 


I 


5.9 


I 


5.9 


I 


100. ( 



Ch1 square 


= 13.88 


Valid cases = 17 


Degrees of freedom 


* 12 


Missing cases * 7 






Response rate ■ 70.8% 



Caution: 21 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



45 



"Jo 1 0*0 r*. co • r- o 

> ■*-> i «r o i »— • i • i csi • 
o o i • i r» i co i o 

KH 1 0\ 1 *■ t CO 1 O 


IOOOO IOOOO I r- CO O 00 li-CO 
r^- | ...I • • • I •••! . 
cm i OOO i OOO i *r o *r i *r 


i f- O O 00 IOOOO IOOOO I r-ffl 
| • • • 1 * • • 1 • • • I • 

to i mo* i OOO i OOO • *»■ 

CM 1 CM O 1 1 


IOOOO lr-0000 IOOOO i <-00 
IO 1 • • • 1 ...I ...1 • 
r- 1 OOO 1 O O *r 1 OOO 1 «* 

1 1 r— O 


1 IOOOOI O O O i f~ 00 
1 p O CO CO 1 • • • 1 CO • • • 1 • 
wt i ... I OOO 1 OOO I <«3- 
f- I U1 O V 1 1 1 
1 CM O 1 1 1 


IOOOO ICMOOlO IOOOO ICMIO 
CO 1 • • • 1 •••! • • • I • 
r- 1 OOO 1 OOOt 1 OOO • C* 

1 1 CM O 1 1 


IOOOO i .- O O 00 IOOO00 l»-Lr> 
<**^> | • • • 1 • • • | • * • | • 

•— i ooo i o o *r i o o ■«• i o\ 

1 i- O 1 1 


IOOOO IOOOO 1 r- CO O CO i i— 00 

1 • • • 1 •••! •••! • 

CO 1 OOO 1 OOO 1 *r O *J- I «■ 

1 »-o 


IOOOO ICMOOU1 IOOOO ICMIO 

"*■** i * • • i * • • i •••! • 
1 OOO 1 OOC> 1 OOO • Ol 
1 1 CM O 1 1 
1 1 r~ 1 • 


I IOOOOI OOOif-CO 

1 p CO ^^ CO 1 ... I CO ... 1 . 
to 1 ...1 OOOl OOOl ^ 
i ir> q «- i i i 

«-» —» 1 CM CO 1 1 1 
«/>«/» 1 r— 1 1 


iber of prizes - (X / 
). of entrants - (Y / 

I ] 

[ I 1 
[ I ] 

[ 3 1 5 1 

1 1 

r 1 1 
0.0 I 0.0 1 

[ 0.0 I 0.0 1 
0.0 I 0.0 1 

[ 11 2 1 
[ 10.0 I 20.0 1 
[ 50.0 I 40.0 1 
1 4.8 I 9.5 1 

[ 11 3 1 
1 14.3 I 42.9 ] 
[ 50.0 I 60.0 1 
1 4.8 I 14.3 1 

[ 2 1 5 1 
[ 9.5 I 23.8 


actual nun 
ranked n< 

2 ! 

1 

r 0.0 1 

[ 0.0 1 

0.0 ] 

1 
[ 0.0 1 
[ 0.0 1 

o.o : 

[ l i 

[ 14.3 1 
1 100.0 ] 
[ 4.8 1 

[ 1 1 
[ 4.8 ! 


Ir-OOCO I <— O O 00 IOOOO ICMIO 
1 r— 1 ...I ...1 ...1 . 

1 in O T " O O *3" I OOOl Os 

1 1 CM LCI 1 I— LP 1 1 

1 


- - * - BY • 

Number 
Row % 
Column % 
Total I 

High ] 

Medium 

Low 

Col umn 
Totals ! 



If) 

. 

cm ro co 



■ a ■ 





M o> 




0) *-> 


«/» 


«/> <o 


Ol 


«o u 


1/1 


u 


<o 


Cv 


u 


CD 1/1 




c c 


•o 


f- o 


T— 


to Q. 


r— 


t/t to 


<o 


f- tv 



lf> 



us 
tV 



& 



1- 



in 


U 


to 

• 


2L 


o» *• 


X 


CM CM 


01 



■ ■ 



"O 



tv t»- 

u o 

3 t/> 



3 



L 
JC <u 



o 
u 



tv 
u 

CO 






A6 



9 

p 

I 
I 



BY 



number of prizes - (X Axis) 
planned value of award - (Y Axis) 



Number 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % 


i 1 


I 


3 


I 


5 


I 


8 


I 


13 


I 


14 


I 


27 


I 


Totals 




[ 


I 


1 


I 





I 





I 


1 


I 





I 





I 






[ 0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


T 


2 




[ 0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


12.5 


High i 


: o.o 


I 


6.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


6.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 






[ l 


I 


3 


I 


5 


I 





I 





I 





I 





I 






: n.i 


I 


33.3 


I 


55.6 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


9 




[ 100.0 


I 


60.0 


I 


71.4 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


56.3 


Medium 


[ 6.3 


I 


18.8 


I 


31.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 






[ 


I 


1 


I 


2 


I 


1 


I 





I 





I 


1 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


5 




[ 0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


28.6 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


31.3 


Low 


[ 0.0 


I 


6.3 


I 


12.5 


I 


6.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 

T 


6.3 


I 




Col umn 


[ 1 


I 


5 


I 


7 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 





I 


1 


I 


16 


Totals ; 


[ 6.3 


I 


31.3 


I 


43.8 


I 


6.3 


I 


6.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


6.3 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 


* 13.79 


YaHd cases = 16 


Degrees of freedom 


= 10 


Missing cases = 8 
Response rate ■ 66.7% 



Caution: 18 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 column not included in Ch1 square calculations 



47 









>5 : 




CM CM 1 


in f— • 


CO o 












m r*. 


r— • 1 


• 1 


CM • 












££ ; 


CM 


CM 1 

LO 1 


CM 1 


8 














O O O O 1 


OOOO i 


f r* oen i 


f en 












r>« | 


• • • 1 


• • • 1 


• • • 1 


• 












CM 1 


O OO i 


OO O i 


mo* i 
f- o 


* 














roon I 


OOOO i 


oooo 


f en 














• • • 1 


• • • 1 


• • • 1 


• 












LD 1 


O O* < 


ooo 


OOO i 


* 












CM 1 


CM O 




















o o o o 


w— O O tO 


oooo 


f en 












1/) 1 


• • • 1 


• • • 


• • • 1 


• 














ooo 


cog* 


OO O i 


* 
















1 O OO o 


1 ooo 


f en 














f © oen 


I • • • 


i C5 • • • 


• 












* 


• • • 


ooo 


ooo 


* 














O © * 
CM © 




















»-© ©en 


l O OO o 


f now 


cm r*. 












CO 


1 • • • 


1 • • • 


1 • • • 


• 














© o *r 

CM IT) 


ooo 


i in o* 

1 r— in 


CO 


f 

CO 

en in 


in 










f O OO 


if non 


i o o OO 


f en 


H ■ n 


c 








o 


• • • 


1 • • • 


1 • • • 


• 




|Q 










o © o 


1 coo< 

o 


ooo 


* 


ses 
cases 
rate 


M 


















to 0) 

u cni/i 


C 








00 


OOOO 

• ■ • 

o o o 


1 o o o o 

1 • • • 

1 ooo 


if son 

| • • • 

i in o * 

1 f o 


f en 

1 • 

* 


c c 

"O *- o 

t- !« o. 

r— «/) Irt 

to T- 01 

=» a: cr 


2? 

c 
a 

3 

cr 

01 




















k. 

«4- 










i f o © en 


if non 


1 o ooo 


cm r» 




^ 








r» 


1 • • • 


1 • • • 


1 • • • 


• 




u 










1 o o * 
i cm in 


1 CO O "0- 

1 m 


ooo 


CO 


in 


















* 

• 


s. 


















CM Cv. 


X 

01 

c 












1 O OO o 


i son 


i f <n 










1 OO OO 


1 • • • 


1 ^* • • • 


1 • 


■ ■ 


« 


_ 






in 


1 • • • 

O OO 


ooo 


i in o* 

1 f o 


i * 




c 


</> 


M 
















■ 
f 


X 


5 














E 
o 

$ 


c 
o 
o 


X 














>- 






1 OO OO 








l/> 




-._,- 




in 


1 • • • 


1 • • • 


1 • • • 


I • 


k. 


^_ 


1 








ooo 


1 O UO VO 

i in co cm 


1 ID * * 


l o 


n- 


r— 




• 








1 f" f- 


i en 




01 


v> 
















0>««- 


u 


«J 


•o 














u o 




N 


i. 














3 t/l 


Ch 
en 


fc. 


X 














O" 0J 




Q. 


•3 














(/> CV 


• • 










t f © O 00 


if non 


1 O O OO 


i cm r» 


L. 


c 


«*- 


«*- 




CO 


1 • • • 


1 • • • 


1 • • • 


t • 


f en 


o 


o 


o 






1 O O "B- 

i cm m 


1 coo« 
i in 


ooo 


1 CO 


o o 


*J 


V. 


01 
















3 


Ol 


3 
















« 


1 

c 


« 
> 
















o 
















^_ 






1 oooo 


i en o © en 


l O O OO 


i f en 






^_ 


<o 






1 • • • 


1 • • • 


1 • • • 


1 • 






ID 


a 




CSJ 


ooo 


1 tfiOf 


ooo 


i * 






3 


4-* 








1 CM O 










4-> 


U 








1 f» 










O 


«o 


















* 


























1 oooo 


i f- en o en 


1 f r* O CO 


i cm r- 






I 




*~ 


1 • ■ • 

ooo 


1 • • • 

1 ooo* 


1 • • • 

i in o * 


CO 








I 
• 








i in 


i f in 










I 

>> 




















CD 




H 




E 

3 




C l/> 

E — 








1 




t« 


1 ^ 


•^ 




If 

o o 








1 


Ol «r* If 


en 




g 








1 


"I 

3 


*f 3 

o o o 


z 


* 


-j 


O f- 








1 


Z 


auh 















^8 



BY 



planned amount of fee - (X Axis) 
actual amount of fee - (Y Axis) 



Number 1 




I 




I 








Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 3 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


: High 


I 


Medium 


I 

T 


Low 


I 

T 


Totals 




[ 2 


I 


2 


I 





I 






[ 50.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


4 




I 100.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


21.1 


High 


10.5 


I 

T 


10.5 


I 


0.0 


I 

T 






[ 


I 


6 


I 


1 


I 






I 0.0 


I 


85.7 


I 


14.3 


I 


7 




[ 0.0 


I 


75.0 


I 


11.1 


I 


36.8 


Medi urn 


[ 0.0 


I 

T 


31.6 


I 

T 


5.3 


I 
T 






I 


I 





I 


8 


I 






I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


8 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


88.9 


I 


42.1 


LOW 


[ 0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 


42.1 


T 




Col umn 


[ 2 


I 


8 


I 


9 


I 


19 


Totals 


I 10.5 


I 


42.1 


I 


47.4 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 


= 22.27 


Valid cases = 19 


Degrees of freedom 


= 4 


Missing cases ■ 5 
Response rate ■ 79. 2% 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



49 



BY 



planned amount of fee - (X Axis) 
planned structure - (Y Axis) 



Number I 










Row % I 










Column % I 








I Row 


Total % I 


High 3 


• Medium 


Low 


I Totals 




1 ] 


: 3 ] 


[ 4 




Open One Stage j 


12.5 ] 
50.0 ] 


[ 37.5 ] 
[ 37.5 ] 


C 50.0 
[ 57.1 


I 8 
I 47.1 




5.9 ] 


[ 17.6 ] 


[ 23.5 






] 


[ 4 ] 


[ 1 




Open Two Stage t 


0.0 ] 
0.0 ] 


[ 80.0 ] 
[ 50.0 3 


[ 20.0 
[ 14.3 


I 5 
I 29.4 




0.0 ] 


[ 23.5 


[ 5.9 






1 ] 


[ ] 


[ 2 




Restricted 


33.3 ] 
50.0 ] 


[ o.o : 

[ 0.0 ] 


[ 66.7 
C 28.6 


I 3 
I 17.6 




5.9 ] 


[ 0.0 


[ 11.8 






] 


[ o : 


C 




Charrette 


0.0 ] 
0.0 ] 


[ o.o : 
[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 
I 0.0 




0.0 ] 


t o.o : 


[ 0.0 






] 


[ l : 


[ 




Invited 


o.o : 

0.0 ] 


[ ioo.o : 
[ 12.5 : 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 1 
I 5.9 




o.o : 


[ 5.9 


[ 0.0 




Column I 


2 ] 


[ 8 : 


[ 7 


I 17 


Totals I 


11.8 : 


c 47.1 : 


[ 41.2 


I 100.0 



Chi square ■ 6.79 

Degrees of freedom = 6 



Valid cases = 17 
Missing cases = 7 
Response rate = 70.8 % 



Caution: 12 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



50 



I 



p 
p 

p 

I 



BY 



actual amount of fee - (X Axis) 
actual structure - (Y Axis) 



Number I 








I 




Row % 1 








I 




Column % 1 








I 


ROW 


Total % I 


High ] 


Medium ] 


; Low 


I 


Totals 




1 ] 


4 ] 


6 


I 




Open One Stage , 


9.1 ] 
16.7 ] 


36.4 ] 
57.1 ] 


54.5 
75.0 


I 
I 


11 
52.4 




4.8 ] 


19.0 ] 


28.6 


I 






4 ] 


: 3 ] 


[ 


I 




Open Two Stage " 


: 57.1 ] 

: 66.7 ] 


[ 42.9 3 
[ 42.9 ] 


[ CO 
[ 0.0 


I 
I 


7 
33.3 




[ 19.0 ] 


[ 14.3 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 




• 


C 1 ] 


[ 3 


[ 2 


I 




Restricted '- 


[ 33.3 ] 

[ 16.7 ] 


[ 0.0 3 

[ 0.0 3 


[ 66.7 

[ 25.0 


I 
I 


3 
14.3 




[ 4.8 : 


[ 0.0 3 


t 9.5 


I 






[ o : 


[ o : 


t 


I 




Charrette ' 


[ o.o : 

[ 0.0 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 
I 



0.0 




[ 0.0 


[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 






[ 


[ o : 


[ 


I 




Invited ! 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 
I 



0.0 




r o.o 


[ 0.0 


I 0.0 


I 




Column 


I 6 


I 7 


I 8 


I 


21 


Totals 


I 28.6 


I 33.3 


r 38.1 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 8.79 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases = 21 
Missing cases = 3 
Response rate = 87.5 % 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 2 rows not included in Chi square calculations 



51 



BY 



planned amount of fee - (X Axis) 
planned approach - (Y Axis) 



Number 
Row % 
Column % 
Total % 


I High : 


[ Medium '. 


Low 


[ Row 
[ Totals 


Prize 


i i : 
i 11.1 : 

I 50.0 
I 5.9 


[ 3 : 

[ 33.3 : 
[ 42.9 : 

[ 17.6 : 


[ 5 ] 
[ 55.6 ] 
t 62.5 ] 
C 29.4 3 


[ 9 
[ 52.9 


Commission 


I 1 
I 100.0 
I 50.0 
I 5.9 


[ o : 
[ o.o : 
[ o.o : 

[ 0.0 ] 


t o : 

[ 0.0 ] 

[ 0.0 ] 
t 0.0 ] 


[ 1 
[ 5.9 


Prize and 

Commission 


I 
I CO 

i o.o : 

I 0.0 


r 4 : 
e 57.1 : 

[ 57.1 ] 
I 23.5 


C 3 ] 
[ 42.9 ] 
[ 37.5 ] 
[ 17.6 ] 


: 7 

[ 41.2 


Column 
Totals 


I 2 

I 11.8 


[ 7 
[ 41.2 ] 


[ 8 ] 
[ 47.1 ] 


[ 17 
[ 100.0 



Chi square = 9.05 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases = 17 
Missing cases = 7 
Response rate = 70.8 % 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



52 



p 
p 
p 

I 
I 



BY 



actual amount of fee - (X Axis) 
actual approach - (Y Axis) 



Number 3 








I 




Row % ] 








I 




Column % ] 








I 


Row 


Total % ] 


: High : 


[ Medium 3 


Low 


I 


Totals 




[ 3 


[ 2 : 


[ 6 


I 






C 0.0 3 


[ 25.0 3 


t 75.0 


I 


8 


Prize 


[ 0.0 3 


[ 28.6 3 


[ 75.0 


I 


38.1 




: 0.0 3 


[ 9.5 


[ 28.6 


I 






[ 1 3 


[ 2 : 


[ 


I 




Commission '. 


[ 33.3 3 
[ 16.7 3 


[ 66.7 3 
[ 28.6 3 


[ 0.0 

[ 0.0 


I 

I 


3 
14.3 




[ 4.8 3 


[ 9.5 3 


[ 0.0 


I 






[ 5 3 


[ 3 3 


[ 2 


I 




Prize and ! 


[ 50.0 3 


[ 30.0 3 


[ 20.0 


I 


10 


[ 83.3 3 


[ 42.9 ] 


[ 25.0 


I 


47.6 


Commission '. 


t 23.8 


[ 14.3 3 


[ 9.5 


I 




Column 3 


[ 6 : 


t 7 ] 


[ 8 


I 


21 


Totals 3 


[ 28.6 3 


[ 33.3 ] 


[ 38.1 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 9.97 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases = 21 
Missing cases = 3 
Response rate = 87.5 % 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



53 



I 



BY 



planned amount of fee - (X Axis) 

planned area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 










Row % ] 










Column % ] 








[ Row 


Total % ] 


: High i 


'. Medium ! 


Low - 


[ Totals 




[ ] 


[ 2 ] 


[ ] 




T J — . 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ ioo.o : 


t 0.0 ] 


2 


Idea . 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 22.2 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 10.5 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ io.5 : 


[ 0.0 ] 






C 1 ] 


[ 1 


[ 5 ] 




Plan 


[ 14.3 ] 


[ 14.3 : 


[ 71.4 ] 


: 7 


[ 50.0 ] 


[ n.i : 


[ 62.5 : 


[ 36.8 




[ 5.3 ] 


[ 5.3 


[ 26.3 ] 






[ 1 ] 


[ 6 : 


[ 3 : 




Project i 


[ 10.0 ] 


[ 60.0 : 


C 30.0 


[ 10 


[ 50.0 ] 


[ 66.7 


[ 37.5 : 


[ 52.6 




t 5.3 : 


[ 31.6 


[ 15.8 

r * " 




Column : 


[ 2 : 


[ 9 : 


[ 8 : 


[ 19 


Totals : 


[ 10.5 : 


[ 47.4 


[ 42.1 


[ 100.0 



Chi square = 6.05 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases = 19 
Missing cases = 5 
Response rate = 79.2 % 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



54 



p 

I 

p 

I 

I 



BY 



actual amount of fee - (X Axis) 

actual area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number 3 
Row % ] 
Column % ] 
Total % ] 


High : 


Medium 


Low 


[ Row 
[ Totals 


Idea 


: o ] 
: o.o ] 

[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


[ 1 ] 
[ 100.0 ] 
[ 14.3 ] 
[ 4.8 ] 


[ ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


1 
[ 4.8 


Plan ; 


[ l ] 

C 16.7 ] 
[ 16.7 ] 
[ 4.8 ] 


[ 1 ] 
[ 16.7 ] 
[ 14.3 ] 
[ 4.8 ] 


[ 4 ] 
[ 66.7 ] 
[ 50.0 ] 
[ 19.0 ] 


[ 6 
C 28.6 


Project 


[ 5 : 

[ 35.7 : 
[ 83.3 I 
[ 23.8 


[ 5 ] 
[ 35.7 ] 
[ 71.4 : 
[ 23.8 : 


[ 4 ] 
[ 28.6 ] 
[ 50.0 ] 

c 19.0 : 


[ 14 
[ 66.7 


Column : 
Totals : 


[ 6 
C 28.6 : 


r 7 : 

[ 33.3 : 


[ 8 : 
[ 38.1 : 


[ 21 
[ 100.0 



Chi square = 4.69 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases = 21 
Missing cases = 3 
Response rate = 87.5 % 



Caution: 8 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



55 



I 

1 



BY 



planned amount of fee - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number 




I 




I 








Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


: High 


I 


Medium 


I 

T 


Low 


I 

T 


Total s 




[ 2 


I 





I 


2 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


2 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


11.1 


Hi gh 


0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 


11.1 


I 






[ 2 


I 


4 


I 


4 


I 






[ 20.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


10 




[ 100.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


55.6 


Medium ! 


[ 11.1 


I 

T 


22.2 


I 

T 


22.2 


T 






[ 


I 


4 


I 


2 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


33.3 


I 


6 




I 0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


33.3 


Low 


[ 0.0 


I 
T 


22.2 


I 

T 


11.1 


I 
T 




Col umn 


[ 2 


I 


8 


I 


8 


I 


18 


Totals 


[ 11.1 


I 


44.4 


I 


44.4 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 


= 4.8 


Valid cases = 18 


Degrees of freedom 


= 4 


Missing cases = 6 
Response rate = 75.0% 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



56 



BY 



actual amount of fee - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 




I 








Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


High 


I 


Medium 


I 

-T-- 


Low 


I 

T 


Total s 




[ 2 


I 


2 


I 





I 






[ 50.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


4 




[ 33.3 


I 


33.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


21.1 


High 


10.5 


I 
T 


10.5 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 






[ 4 


I 


3 


I 


3 


I 






I 40.0 


I 


30.0 


I 


30.0 


I 


10 




[ 66.7 


I 


50.0 


I 


42.9 


I 


52.6 


Medium 


[ 21.1 


I 

T 


15.8 


I 

-T-. 


15.8 


I 

T 






[ 


I 


1 


I 


4 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


80.0 


I 


5 




[ 0.0 


I 


16.7 


I 


57.1 


I 


26.3 


Low ; 


[ 0.0 


I 

T 


5.3 


I 

T 


21.1 


T 




Column 


[ 6 


I 


6 


I 


7 


I 


19 


Totals 


I 31.6 


I 


31.6 


I 


26.8 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 7.01 

Degrees of freedom ■ 4 



Valid cases = 19 
Missing cases = 5 
Response rate - 79. 2£ 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



57 






BY - 




planned types of public 


1ty - (X Ax- 


is) 


















actual type 


>s of publid 


ty - (Y Ax1 


s) 
















Number ] 












I 




I 




I 




I 


Row % ] 












I 




I 




I 




I 


Column % ] 












I 




I 




I 




I Row 


Total % ] 





I 1 ] 


2 I 


3 I 


4 


I 


5 


I 


6 


I 


10 


I Totals 





1 


I ] 


I 


I 





I 





I 





I 





I 




100.0 


I 0.0 1 


0.0 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 1 




12.5 


I 0.0 ] 


0.0 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 4.2 




4.2 


I 0.0 1 


0.0 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 

7 


0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 
_I 


1 ] 





I 1 


1 I 


I 





I 





I 


1 


I 





I 




0.0 


I 0.0 1 


: 50.o i 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 2 




0.0 


I 0.0 ] 


33.3 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 8.3 




0.0 


I 0.0 ] 


4.2 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


4.2 


I 


0.0 


I 







I 1 ] 


I 


I 





I 





I 





I 





I 


2 1 


0.0 


I 100.0 1 


0.0 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 1 




0.0 


I 25.0 3 


[ 0.0 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 4.2 


* 


0.0 


I 4.2 1 


0.0 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 




1 


I 1 ] 


I 


1 I 


1 


I 





I 





I 





I 


3 


33.3 


I 0.0 1 


[ 0.0 I 


33.3 I 


33.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 3 




12.5 


I 0.0 1 


[ 0.0 I 


25.0 I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 12.5 


^ 


4.2 


o.o : 


0.0 I 


4.2 I 


4.2 


I 
I- 


0.0 


I- 


0.0 


I 

I- 


0.0 


I 

I 




: 1 


I 1 


[ I 


I 





I 


1 


I 





I 





I 


4 ] 


50.0 


I 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 2 




[ 12.5 


I 0.0 1 


[ 0.0 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 8.3 




4.2 


i o.o : 


[ 0.0 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


4.2 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 




[ 


I 1 


[ 1 I 


3 I 





I 





I 





I 





I 


5 


[ 20.0 


I 0.0 1 


[ 20.0 I 


60.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 5 




[ 12.5 


I 0.0 ] 


I 33.3 I 


75.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 20.8 




[ 4.2 


i o.o : 


[ 4.2 I 


12.5 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 




[ 4 


I ! 


[ I 


I 


1 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


6 


[ 80.0 


I 0.0 1 


[ 0.0 I 


0.0 I 


20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 5 




[ 50.0 


i o.o ; 


[ 0.0 I 


0.0 I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 20.8 




[ 16.7 


I 0.0 ] 


I 0.0 I 


0.0 I 


4.2 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


7 


I 


I 3 


I 1 I 


I 





I 





I 





I 





I 




I 0.0 


I 75.0 


[ 25.0 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 4 




I 0.0 


I 75.0 


I 33.3 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 16.7 




I 0.0 


I 12.5 


I 4.2 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


8 


I 


I 


I I 


I 





I 





I 


1 


I 


1 


I 




I 0.0 


I 0.0 


I 0.0 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 1 




r o.o 


I 0.0 


I 0.0 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 4.2 




I 0.0 


I 0.0 


I 0.0 I 


0.0 I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


4.2 


I 


Column 


I 8 


I 4 


I 3 I 


4 I 


2 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 24 


Total s 


I 33.3 


I 16.7 


I 12.5 I 


16.7 


8.3 


I 


4.2 


I 


4.2 


I 


4.2 


I 100.0 



Chi square 


= 85.99 


Valid cases « 24 


Degrees of freedom 


= 56 


Missing cases ■ • 
Response rate = 100.01 



Caution: 72 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



58 



BY 



planned types of publicity - (X Axis) 
planned publicity value - (Y Axis) 



Number 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 


Row % 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 


Column % 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I Row 


Total % ] 





I 


1 


I 


2 


I 


3 


I 


4 


I 


5 


I 


6 


I 


10 


I Totals 




[ 2 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 





I 





I 





I 





I 





I 




[ 40.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 5 




[ 25.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


33.3 


I 


25.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 23.8 


High 


[ 9.5 


I 


4.8 


I 


4.8 


I 


4.8 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


o.o 


I 




[ 1 


I 





I 





I 


3 


I 





I 





I 





I 


1 


I 




I 20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


60.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 5 




[ 12.5 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


75.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 23.8 


Medium 


[ 4.8 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


14.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


4.8 


I 




[ 5 


I 


3 


I 


2 


I 





I 


1 


I 





I 





I 





I 




I 45.5 


I 


27.3 


I 


18.2 


I 


0.0 


I 


9.1 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 11 




[ 62.5 


I 


75.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 52.4 


Low 


[ 23.8 


I 


14.3 


I 


9.5 


I 


0.0 


I 


4.8 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


Col umn 


[ 8 


I 


4 


I 


3 


I 


4 


I 


1 


I 





I 





I 


1 


I 21 


Totals ' 


[ 38.1 


I 


19.0 


I 


14.3 


I 


19.0 


I 


4.8 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


4.8 


I 100.0 



Chi square 


* 13.49 


Valid cases ■ 21 


Degrees of freedom 


= 10 


Missing cases = 3 
Response rate a 87.5 



Caution: 18 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 2 columns not included 1n Chi square calculations 



59 



BY 



actual types of publicity - (X Axis) 
actual publicity value - (Y Axis) 



Number 1 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


[ 


I 


1 


I 


2 


I 


3 


I 


4 


I 


5 


I 


6 


I 


7 


I 


8 


I 


Totals 


High 





I 





I 





I 





I 





I 





I 





I 





I 





I 






0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 




0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 




Medium 


[ 


I 





I 





I 





I 





I 





I 





I 


2 


I 


1 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


33.3 


I 


3 




1 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


100.0 


I 


37.5 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


12.5 


I 






[ 


I 





I 





I 





I 





I 


1 


I 


3 


I 


1 


I 





I 




Low 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


60.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


5 




I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


33.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


62.5 




I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


12.5 


I 


37.5 


I 


12.5 


I 


0.0 


I 




Col umn 


[ 


I 





I 





I 





I 





I 


1 


I 


3 


I 


3 


I 


1 


I 


8 


Totals 


I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


12.5 


I 


37.5 


I 


37.5 


I 


12.5 


I 


100.0 



Ch1 square 


- 5.15 


Valid cases * 8 


Degrees of freedom 


- 3 


Missing cases ■ 16 
Response rate » 33.3% 



Caution: 8 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 5 columns A 1 row not Included 1n Chi square calculations 



60 



BY 



planned total value of awards - (X Axis) 
planned types of publicity - (Y Axis) 



Number 1 




I 




I 




I 


Row % ] 




I 




I 




I 


Column % ] 




I 




I 




I Row 


Total % 1 


High 


I 1 

T 


Medium 


I 


Low 


I Totals 

.T 




1 


I 


3 


I 


3 


I 


] 


14.3 


I 


42.9 


I 


42.9 


I 7 




25.0 


I 


27.3 


I 


60.0 


I 35.0 




5.0 


I 
T 


15.0 


I 

T 


15.0 


I 
_j 







I 


2 


I 


1 


I 


1 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


33.3 


I 3 




0.0 


I 


18.2 


I 


20.0 


I 15.0 




[ 0.0 


I 

T 


10.0 


I 

-T-. 


5.0 


I 

_T 




[ 1 


I 


2 


I 





I 


1 


[ 33.3 


I 


66.7 


I 


0.0 


I 3 




[ 25.0 


I 


18.2 


I 


0.0 


I 15.0 




5.0 


I 


10.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

_T 




[ 1 


I 


2 


I 


1 


I 


3 


[ 25.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


25.0 


I 4 




[ 25.0 


I 


18.2 


I 


20.0 


I 20.0 




[ 5.0 




10.0 


I 


5.0 


I 




[ 1 


I 





I 





I 


4 


[ 100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 1 




[ 25.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 5.0 




[ 5.0 


I 
I- 


0.0 


I 
I- 


0.0 


I 

I 




[ 


I 


1 


I 





I 


5 


[ 0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 1 




[ 0.0 


I 


9.1 


I 


0.0 


I 5.0 




I 0.0 


I 
I- 


5.0 


I 
I- 


0.0 


I 

I 


6 


I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 




I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 




I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 0.0 




I 0.0 


I 

I- 


0.0 


I 
I- 


0.0 


I 

I 


10 


I 


I 


1 


I 





I 




I 0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 1 




I 0.0 


I 


9.1 


I 


0.0 


I 5.0 




I 0.0 


I 
I- 


5.0 


I 
I- 


0.0 


I 

I 


Col umn 


I 4 


I 


11 


I 


5 


I 20 


Totals 


I 20.0 


I 


55.0 


I 


25.0 


I 100.0 



Chi square = 8.74 

Degrees of freedom = 12 



Valid cases 
Missing cases 
Response rate 



= 20 
= 4 

= 83. 3% 



Caution: 21 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



61 



BY 



actual total value of awards - (X Axis) 
actual types of publicity - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 3 




I 




I 




I 




Column % ] 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % 1 


High 


I 1 

T 


Medium 


I 

T 


Low 


I 

T 


Total s 







I 


1 


I 





I 




] 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


1 




0.0 


I 


10.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


4.3 




0.0 


I 

T 


4.3 


I 
T 


0.0 


I 

T 






2 


I 





I 





I 




1 ] 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


2 




28.6 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


8.7 




8.7 


I 
T 


0.0 


I 
7 


0.0 


I 

T 









I 


1 


I 





I 




2 ] 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


1 




0.0 


I 


10.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


4.3 




0.0 


I 

T 


4.3 


I 


0.0 


I 









I 


2 


I 





I 




3 1 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


2 




0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


8.7 




0.0 


I- 


8.7 


I 
I- 


0.0 


I 
I- 






[ 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 




4 : 


[ 0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


2 




[ 0.0 


I 


10.0 


I 


16.7 


I 


8.7 




0.0 


I 
I- 


4.3 


I 
I- 


4.3 


I 

I- 






[ 2 


I 


1 


I 


2 


I 




5 1 


[ 40.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


5 




[ 28.6 


I 


10.0 


I 


33.3 


I 


21.7 




8.7 


I 
I- 


4.3 


I 
I- 


8.7 


I 
I- 




6 


[ 2 


I 


2 


I 


1 


I 




\ 


[ 40.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


5 




f 28.6 


I 


20.0 


I 


16.7 


I 


21.7 




[ 8.7 


I 
I- 


8.7 


I 
I- 


4.3 


I 

I- 






I 1 


I 


2 


I 


1 


I 




7 


[ 25.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


4 




I 14.3 


I 


20.0 


I 


16.7 


I 


17.4 




I 4.3 


I 
T 


8.7 


I 


4.3 


I 






I 


I 





I 


1 


I 




8 


I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


1 




r o.o 


I 


0.0 


I 


16.7 


I 


4.3 




[ 0.0 


I 
T 


0.0 


I 
T 


4.3 


I 
T 




Column 


I 7 


I 


10 


I 


6 


I 


23 


Total s 


I 30.4 


I 


43.5 


I 


26.1 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 


= 15.14 


Valid cases = 23 


Degrees of freedom 


= 16 


Missing cases = 1 
Response rate = 95.8% 



Caution: 27 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 

6 2 



BY 



planned publicity value - (X Axis) 
actual publicity value - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 




I 








Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % 1 


[ High 


I 


Medium 


I 


Low 


I 


Total s 




[ 


I 





I 





I 






[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 







I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


Hi gh i 


[ 0.0 


I 
T 


0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 
T 






[ 1 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 






[ 33.3 


I 


33.3 


I 


33.3 


I 


3 




[ 50.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


33.3 


I 


42.9 


Medium 


[ 14.3 


I 
T 


14.3 


I 
T 


14.3 


T 






[ 1 


I 


1 


I 


2 


I 






[ 25.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


4 




[ 50.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


57.1 


Low 


[ 14.3 


I 

T 


14.3 


I 

-T-. 


28.6 


I 

T 




Column 


[ 2 


I 


2 


I 


3 


I 


7 


Totals 


I 28.6 


I 


28.6 


I 


42.9 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



.19 



= 2 



Valid cases ■ 7 
Missing cases = 17 
Response rate = 29.2% 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi sauare calculations 



63 



BY 



planned total value of awards - (X Axis) 
planned publicity value - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


! High 


I 


Medium 


I 

T 


Low 


I 

T 


Total s 




[ 


I 


3 


I 


2 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


60.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


5 




[ 0.0 


I 


30.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


27.8 


Hi gh 


0.0 


I 

T 


16.7 


I 

T 


11.1 


I 

T 






[ 1 


I 


3 


I 


1 


I 






[ 20.0 


I 


60.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


5 




[ 33.3 


I 


30.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


27.8 


Medium 


[ 5.6 


I 
T 


16.7 


I 
T 


5.6 


I 
T 






[ 2 


I 


4 


I 


2 


I 






I 25.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


8 




[ 66.7 


I 


40.0 


I 


40.0 


I 


44.4 


Low 


I 11.1 


I 

T 


22.2 


I 

T 


11.1 


I 

T 




Col umn 


I 3 


I 


5 


I 


10 


I 


18 


Totals 


I 16.7 


I 


27.8 


I 


55.6 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 1.49 

Degrees of freedom ■ 4 



Valid cases = 18 
Missing cases = 6 
Response rate = 75.0$ 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



64 



BY 



actual total value of awards - (X Axis) 
actual publicity value - (Y Axis) 



Number 1 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % ] 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % 1 


; High 


I 


Medium 


I 


Low 


I 


Total s 




[ 


I 





I 





I 






[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 







[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


High 1 


[ 0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 






[ 


I 


2 


I 


1 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


33.3 


I 


3 




[ 0.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


50.0 


I 


37.5 


Medium ! 


[ 0.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


12.5 


I 






[ 3 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 






[ 60.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


5 




[ 100.0 


I 


33.3 


I 


50.0 


I 


62.5 


Low 


[ 37.5 


I 

T 


12.5 


I 

T 


12.5 


I 
T 




Col umn 


I 3 


I 


2 


I 


3 


I 


8 


Total s 


I 37.5 


I 


25.0 


I 


37.5 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 3.02 

Degrees of freedom ■ 2 



Valid cases = 8 
Missing cases = 16 
Response rate = 33.3% 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



65 



BY 



planned publicity value - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 




I 




I 




Row % ] 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


[ Hi gh 


I 


Medium 


I 

T 


Low 


I 

T 


Total s 




[ 1 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 






[ 33.3 


I 


33.3 


I 


33.3 


I 


3 




[ 20.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


11.1 


I 


15.8 


Hi gh 


[ 5.3 


I 

T 


5.3 


I 
T 


5.3 


I 
T 






[ 2 


I 


4 


I 


2 


I 






[ 25.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


8 




[ 40.0 


I 


80.0 


I 


22.2 


I 


42.1 


Medium 


[ 10.5 


I 

T 


21.1 


I 
T 


10.5 


I 

T 






[ 2 


I 





I 


6 


I 






[ 25.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


75.0 


I 


8 




[ 40.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


42.1 


Low 


[ 10.5 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 


31.6 


I 

T 




Col umn 


I 5 


I 


9 


I 


5 


I 


19 


Totals 


I 26.3 


I 


47.4 


I 


26.3 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 6.19 

Degrees of freedom = 4 



Valid cases = 19 
Missing cases = 5 
Response rate ■ 79.2% 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



66 



BY 



actual publicity value - (X Axis) 
ranked no. of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number 1 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


[ High 


I 


Medium 


I 


Low 


I 


Totals 




[ 


I 


2 


I 


1 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


33.3 


I 


3 




[ 0.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


20.0 


I 


37.5 


Hi gh 


[ 0.0 


I 

T 


25.0 


I 
T 


12.5 


I 

T 






[ 


I 


1 


I 


4 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


80.0 


I 


5 




[ 0.0 


I 


33.3 


I 


80.0 


I 


62.5 


Medium 


I 0.0 


I 


12.5 


I 


50.0 


I 

T 






[ 


I 





I 





I 






[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 







[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


Low 


[ 0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 




Col umn 


I 


I 


3 


I 


5 


I 


8 


Total s 


I 0.0 


I 


37.5 


I 


62.5 


I 


100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



.32 



= 1 



Valid cases = 8 
Missing cases = 16 
Response rate = 33.3% 



Caution: 4 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 column & 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



67 



BY 



planned total competition value - (X Axis) 
actual total competition value - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 




I 




I 




Row % ] 




I 




I 




I 




Column % ) 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ) 


" High 


I 

T 


Medium 


I 

T 


Low 


I 

T 


Total s 




[ 3 


I 





I 





I 






: 100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


3 




: ioo.o 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


37.5 


High ] 


37.5 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 
T 


0.0 


I 
T 






[ 


I 


4 


I 





I 






[ 0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


4 




[ 0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


50.0 


Medium 


I 0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 






[ 


I 





I 


1 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


1 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


12.5 


Low 


[ 0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 


12.5 


I 
T 




Col umn 


[ 3 


I 


4 


I 


1 


I 


8 


Total s 


I 37.5 


I 


50.0 


I 


12.5 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 16 

Degrees of freedom - 4 



Valid cases 
Missing cases 
Response rate 



= 8 
= 

= 100.0% 



Caution: 9 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



68 



BY 



planned area of design concern - (X Axis) 
actual area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number I I I I 

Row % I I I I 

Column % I TJ !„, I „ . I Row 

Total % I Idea I Plan I Pr °Ject i Totals 

I 1 1 1 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

Idea I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I II 4 1 1 

I 20.0 I 80.0 I 0.0 I 5 

Plan I 100.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 62.5 

I 12.5 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 

I 1 1 3 1 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 3 

Project I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 37.5 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 37.5 I 

Column I II 41 31 8 

Totals I 12.5 I 50.0 I 37.5 I 100.0 



Chi square = 8 

Degrees of freedom = 2 



Valid cases 
Missing cases 
Response rate 



= 8 
= 
= 100.0 % 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



69 



BY 



actual area of design concern - (X Axis) 
actual number of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number 


I 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 


I 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 
Total % 


I 
I 


Idea 


I 
I 


Plan 


I 
I 


Project 


I 
I 


Row 
Totals 


_________ 


-I- 





-I- 





-I- 


_ 


— I- 


.. _. 




I 





I 


X 


— * 
X 





X 




3 


T 


0.0 


J 


100.0 


J 


0.0 


3 


1 




3 


0.0 


J 


20.0 


T 


0.0 


1 


12.5 




J 


o.o 


J 


3 2.5 


T 


0.0 


1 






x — 

I 


c 


— r 


1 


I 





— j " 
I 




4 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


3 


3 




I 


0.0 


I 


20.0 


T 


0.0 


3 


12.5 




I 

I- 

I 


0.0 


I 
-I- 

I 


12.5 


I 
-I- 

I 


0.0 


I 
-I- 

I 












2 




5 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


2 




T 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


66.7 


I 


25.0 




T 

I - 
I 


0,0 



7 

X 


0.0 

± 


I 

-J. " 
I 


25.0 


I 

j ~ 
I 











6 


1 


0,0 


1 


100.0 


3 


O.o 


I 


1 




1 


0.0 


3 


20.0 


3 


0.0 


J 


12.5" 




J 


0.0 


J 


3 2.5 


T 

-I- 

I 


0.0 


3 

-I- 

I 






J 
I 





I 


1 







10 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


1 




I 


0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


12.5 




I 
I- 


0.0 


I 


12.5 


I 
I- 


0.0 


I 

- * 
















I 





I 


C 


I 


1 


I 




32 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


1 




I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


3 


33.3 


I 


12. r 




J 

3" 

I 


0.0 


T 


0.0 


J 


12.5 


I 









J." 

I 


X 


X" 
X 





X" 

X 




35CC 


















I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


i 




I 


0.0 


I 


20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


12.5 




I 


0.0 


I 


12.5 


I 


0.0 


I 






I- 


__ _ — 


-I- 


_______ 


-I- 


_______ 


-I- 


— _____ 


Column 


I 





I 


5 


I 


3 


I 


f 


Total e 


I 


o.o 


1 


62.5 


I 


37. 5" 


J 


100.0 


Chi square 






- 1 


.9£ 


1 


Valid cases ■ 8 


Degrees 


Of 


freedc 


m 


■- 6 






Hissing cases - 
















I 


Response rate ■= 100.0 



% 



Caution: 14 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
KoI.h: 1 column not included in Chi square calculations 



70 



BY 



planned approach - (X Axis) 
actual approach - (Y Axis) 






Number ] 
Row % ] 
Column % ] 
Total % ] 


• Prize 


■ Commis- 
sion 


; Prize 1 
and 

Commis— ■ 
sion 


: 

[ Row 
[ Totals 


Prize 


[ 4 ] 
[ 100.0 ] 
[ 100.0 ] 
[ 57.1 ] 


[ ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


[ ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


4 
C 57.1 


Commission ■ 


: o ] 

C 0.0 ] 
C 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


[ ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


[ o : 

C 0.0 ] 

[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


[ 

[ 0.0 


Prize and 
Commission 


[ 3 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


[ ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 
[ 0.0 ] 


[ 3 ] 

c ioo.o : 
[ ioo.o : 

[ 42.9 


i 3 

[ 42.9 


Column ] 
Totals ] 


[ 4 

[ 57.1 : 


[ o : 

[ 0.0 


[ 3 : 

[ 42.9 : 


[ 7 
[ 100.0 



Corrected Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



3.51 
1 



Valid cases = 7 
Missing cases = 1 
Response rate = 87.5 % 



Caution: 4 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 column &1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



71 



actual approach - (X Axis) 

BY 

actual number of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Nuir.be r 


I 


T 




1 


Prize 


i 


*cw % 


i 


1 




I 


and 


__ 


Column % 


I Prize 


T Commis- 


T 

— . 


Commis- 


I ROW 


Total % 


1 


I 


sion 


1 


sion 


1 Totals 




I 1 


I 





I 





I 


3 


I 100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 1 




I 20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 12.5 




I 12.5 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 




I 1 


— x — 

I 





— x~ 
I 





J. 


4 


I 100.0 


J 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 3 




I 20.0 


J 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 12.5 




I 12.5 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 




I 


-I- 




-I- 




-I 




I 


I 





I 


2 


I 


5 


I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 2 




I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


66.7 


I 25.0 




I 0.0 


T 


0.0 


I 


25.0 


I 




X X 


~x~ 

I 





X 





I 


6 


I 100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 1 




I 20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 12.5 




I 12.5 
I 


I 

-I- 

I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 







X 

I 


1 


"X "" 

I 


10 


I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 1 




I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


33.3 


I 12.5 




I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


12.5 


I 




x x 


— I" 
I 


c 


— I- 

I 


C 


I 


3? 


J 3 00.0 


I 


0.( 


I 


D.O 


I 1 




T 20.0 


I 


CO 


J 


CeO 


3 12.5 




I 12.5 


I 


0.0 


I 


O.f 


3 




I 


-I- 




-I- 




-I 




I 1 


I 





I 





I 


1500 














I 100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 1 




I 20.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 12.5 




I 12.5 
I 5 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


Column 


X*" 

I 





X ~ 

I 


3 


I 6 


Totals 


I 62.5 


1 


D.O 


I 


57.5 


I 100.0 


Chi squa 


ire 




= 7 


.9' 


1 


Vclic ca 


Degrees 


of freedom 


= 6 






Missing 



•s = 8 
ses = 
Response rate = 100.0 % 



Caution: 14 cells contain ax\ expected frequency less than. 5 
Note: 1 column not included in. Chi square calculations 

72 



planned type of incentive - (X Axis) 



BY 

actual type of incentive - (Y Axis) 

Number III Monetary 1 1 

R° w * * Monetary * Contract-* and Other 

Column % I I ua i I Contract- 1 * Row 

Total % I I I ua i I I Totals 

I 41 01 01 01 

I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 4 

Monetary I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 80.0 

I 80.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 01 01 01 01 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

Contractual j 0#0 j .0 j 0#0 j .0 I 0.0 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 01 01 II 01 

Monetary & 1 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 1 

Contractual I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 20.0 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 20.0 I 0.0 I 

I 01 01 01 01 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

0ther I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

Column I 41 01 II 01 5 

Totals I 80.0 I 0.0 I 20.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 



Corrected Chi square 
Dearees of freedom 



.7 
1 



Valid cases = 5 
Missing cases = 3 
Response rate = 62.5 % 



Caution: 4 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 

Note: 2 columns & 2 rows not included in Chi square calculations 



73 



BY 



planned type of incentive - (X Axis) 
planned approach - (Y Axis) 



Number 3 
Row % ] 
Column % ] 
Total % 


; Monetary ; 


Contract-: 

ual ! 


[ Monetary I 
C and I 
[ Contract-I 
I ual 1 


Other 


I 
I 
I 
I 


Row 
Totals 


Prize ; 


[ 3 : 
[ 100.0 : 

[ 75.0 
[ 60.0 


[ 
[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


r I 
I 0.0 I 

r o.o i 
r o.o i 



0.0 
0.0 
0.0 


I 

I 

I 

I 
-I- 

I 

I 

I 

I 
-I- 

I 

I 

I 

I 
-I- 

I 

I 


3 
60.0 


Commission ; 


[ 

[ o.o : 

[ 0.0 

[ 0.0 


[ 
[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


r o i 
r o.o i 

I 0.0 I 

r o.o i 



0.0 
0.0 
0.0 



0.0 


Prize and ; 
Commission \ 


[ i : 
[ 50.0 : 

[ 25.0 
[ 20.0 


[ 

[ o.o : 

[ 0.0 

[ 0.0 


i l i 

I 50.0 I 

r loo.o i 
r 20.0 i 



0.0 
0.0 
0.0 


2 

40.0 


Column ] 
Totals ] 


[ 4 
[ 80.0 


[ 

c o.o : 


i l i 

I 20.0 I 



0.0 


5 
100.0 



Corrected Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



.05 
1 



Valid cases = 5 
Missing cases = 3 
Response rate = 62.5 



% 



Caution: 4 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 2 columns &1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



74 



BY 



actual type of incentive - (X Axis) 
actual approach - (Y Axis) 



Number 
Row % 
Column % 
Total % 



Prize 



Commission 



Prize and 
Commission 



Column 
Totals 



1 Monetary 

I 

I 

I 5 

I 100.0 

I 83.3 

I 62.5 

I 

I 0.0 

I 0.0 

I 0.0 

I 1 

I 33.3 

I 16.7 

I 12.5 

I 6 

I 75.0 



I Contract- 
I ual 
I 

I 

I 0.0 

I 0.0 

I 0.0 

I 

I 0.0 

I 0.0 

I 0.0 

I 

I 0.0 

I 0.0 

I 0.0 

I 

I 0.0 



I Monetary I 

I and I 

I Contract-I 

1 ual I 

I 1- 

I 1 

I 0.0 I 

I 0.0 I 

I 0.0 I 

•I 1- 

I 1 

I 0.0 I 

I 0.0 I 

I 0.0 I 

I 1' 

I 2 1 

I 66.7 I 

I 100.0 I 

I 25.0 I 

■I 1' 

I 2 1 

I 25.0 I 



Other 




0.0 
0.0 
0.0 


0.0 
0.0 
0.0 


0.0 
0.0 
0.0 


0.0 



Row 

Totals 



5 
62.5 





0.0 



3 
37.5 



8 
100.0 



Corrected Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



1.6 
1 



Valid cases = 8 
Missing cases = 
Response rate = 100.0 % 



Caution: 4 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 2 columns &1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



75 



BY 



planned type of incentive - (X Axis) 
planned area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number 
Row % 

Column % 
Total % 


Monetary ; 


; Contract 
ual 


I 
I 
I 

I 


Monetary ; 

and 
Contract-; 

ual 


Other 


I Row 
I Totals 




I 1 ] 


[ 


I 


] 


[ 




T A pa 


I 100.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 1 


XU del 


I 25.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 20.0 




I 20.0 ] 


t 0.0 


I 

-I- 
I 


0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 






I 2 ] 


[ 


1 ] 


[ 






I 66.7 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


33.3 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 3 


Plan 


I 50.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


100.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 60.0 




I 40.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 
-I- 

I 


20.0 ] 


[ 0.0 






I 1 ] 


[ 


] 


[ 




Project 


I 100.0 ] 
I 25.0 ] 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 
I 


0.0 ] 
0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 1 
I 20.0 




I 20.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 

-I- 
I 


0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 




Column 


I 4 ] 


[ 


1 ] 


[ 


I 5 


Totals 


I 80.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


20.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 100.0 



Chi square = .83 

Degrees of freedom ■ 2 



Valid cases = 5 
Missing cases = 3 
Response rate = 62 



5 % 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 2 columns not included in Chi square calculations 



76 



BY 



actual type of incentive - (X Axis) 
actual area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number 
Row % 


I Monetary ! 


' Contract- '. 


Monetary 

and 
Contract- . 

ual 


ther 


I 
I 




Column % 
Total % 




ual 




I 
I 


Row 
Totals 




I ] 


[ 


r o ] 


[ 


I 




Idea 


I 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 





I 0.0 ] 


[ o.o : 


I 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 




I 0.0 ] 


t 0.0 . 


r o.o ] 


[ 0.0 


I 






I 4 ] 


t 


r l ] 


[ 


I 




Plan 


I 80.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


r 20.0 ] 


C 0.0 


I 


5 


I 66.7 : 


[ 0.0 


I 50.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


62.5 




i 50.0 : 


[ 0.0 


I 12.5 


[ 0.0 


I 






I 2 


[ 


i i : 


t 


I 




Project 


I 66.7 
I 33.3 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 33.3 : 

i 50.0 : 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 
I 


3 
37.5 




I 25.0 


[ 0.0 


I 12.5 


C 0.0 


I 




Column 


I 6 


[ 


I 2 


[ 


I 


8 


Totals 


I 75.0 


[ 0.0 


I 25.0 


[ 0.0 


I 


100.0 



Corrected Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



.17 
1 



Valid cases = 8 
Missing cases = 
Response rate = 100.0 



% 



Caution: 4 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 2 columns &1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



77 



hi 



actual type- of incentive - (X AxieO 
actual number of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number I 

Row % r 

Column % 1 

Total % } 
1 


Monetary ^ 


; Contract- 
' ual 


Monetary 
- j and 
_ Contract 
_. ual 


T 

I 

I 
"I 
-I- 

I 


Other \ 


. RoW 
; Totals 


1 ] 


I C 


I 


c 


C ] 




3 I 


100.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


1 




16.7 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


12.5 




12.5 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 

-I- 

t 


0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 






1 } 


: o 





I 


] 




A I 


100.0 J 


[ o.o 


I 


o.o 


I 


0.0 3 


: l 




16.7 J 


t o.o 


I 


o.o 


I 


0.0 J 


; 12.5" 




12. S ] 


[ 0.0 


I 

-I- 

I 


0.0 


* 


o.o : 






1 ] 


[ 


1 


I 


] 




5 1 


50. J 


[ 0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 3 


: z 




16.3 3 


: o.o 


J 


50.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


: 25.0 




12.5 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


12.5 


J 

-1- 


0.0 J 






1 


: c 







c : 




6 I 


100.0 ] 


[ 0.0 




0.0 




o.o : 


' ] 




16.7 ] 


[ 0.0 




0.0 




0.0 ] 


t 12.5 




12.5 


[ 0.0 




0.0 




0.0 ] 






] 


C 




1 




: 




10 1 


0.0 1 


L 0.0 




100.0 




o.o : 


[ 1 




o.o ; 


I 0.0 




50.0 




o.o : 


[ ^2.S 




o.o : 


L 0.0 




12.5 


-J- 


o.o : 




* 


i : 


[ 







o : 




12 I 


100.0 ] 


C 0.0 




0.0 




o.o : 


I 1 




16.7 ] 


: o.o 




0.0 




o.o : 


C 12.5 




12.5 ; 


[ 0.0 




O.O 




o.o : 






1 


I o 














15001 






r 












300.0 


0.0 




0.0 




o.o ; 


1. 1 




16.? : 


[ 0.0 




0.0 




o.o : 


I 12.5 




12.5 ; 


[ o.o 




0.0 




o.o : 




Column I 


6 


I o 




2 




o : 


1 8 


Totals I 


75.0 


L 0.0 




25.0 




o.o : 


I 100.0 



CM square - 5.33 

Degrees of freedom = 6 



Valid cases 
Missing cases 
Response' rate 



o 

100. % 



Caution: 14 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 2 columns r\ot includec] in Chi square calculations 

78 



BY 



planned value of first place - (X Axis) 
actual value of first place - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


! High 


I 

T 


Medium 


I 

T 


Low 


I 

T 


Totals 




[ 2 


I 





I 





I 






[ 100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


2 




[ 100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


50.0 


Hi gh 


50.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 






[ 


I 





I 





I 






[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 







[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


Medium 


[ 0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 
T 






[ 


I 





I 


2 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


2 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


50.0 


Low 


0.0 


I 
T 


0.0 


I 

T 


50.0 


I 

T 




Col umn 


[ 2 


I 





I 


2 


I 


4 


Total s 


[ 50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 1 

Degrees of freedom = 1 



Valid cases = 4 
Missing cases = 4 
Response rate = 50.0% 



Caution: 4 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 column & 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



79 



BY 



planned value of first place - (X Axis) 
planned approach - (Y Axis) 



Number 


I 








I 




Row % 


I 








I 




Column % 


I 








I 


Row 


Total % 


I 
-I- 


High : 


. Medium 


I Low 


I 
-I- 


Totals 




I 


1 ] 


[ 


I 2 


I 




Prize 


I 


33.3 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 66.7 


I 


3 




I 


50.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 100.0 


I 


75.0 




I 


25.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 50.0 


I 






I 


] 


[ 


I 


I 




Commission 


I 
I 


0.0 ] 

0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 0.0 
I 0.0 


I 
I 



0.0 




I 


0.0 ] 


C 0.0 


I 0.0 


I 






I 


1 ] 


[ 


I 


I 




Prize and 
Commission 


I 
I 
I 


100.0 ] 
50.0 ] 
25.0 ] 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 

[ 0.0 


I 0.0 
I 0.0 

I 0.0 


I 
I 

I 


1 
25.0 
















Column 


I 


2 ] 


[ 


I 2 


I 


4 


Totals 


I 


50.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 50.0 


I 


100.0 



Corrected Chi square = 
Degrees of freedom ■ 1 



Valid cases = 4 
Missing cases = 4 
Response rate = 50.0 % 



Caution: 4 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 column &1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



80 



BY 



actual value of first place - (X Axis) 
actual approach - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 










Row % ] 










Column % ] 








I Row 


Total % ] 


[ High 


I Med ium 


Low 


I Totals 




[ 1 


I ] 


: 3 




Prize 


[ 25.0 
[ 50.0 


I 0.0 ] 
I 0.0 ] 


[ 75.0 

: loo.o 


I 4 
I 57.1 




[ 14.3 


I 0.0 ] 


C 42.9 






[ 


I ] 


[ 




Commission 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 0.0 ] 

I 0.0 ] 


t 0.0 

C 0.0 


I 

I 0.0 




[ 0.0 


I 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 






[ 1 


I 2 ] 


[ 




Prize and " 

Commission ! 


[ 33.3 
[ 50.0 
[ 14.3 


I 66.7 : 

i loo.o : 

I 28.6 : 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 3 
I 42.9 


Column ] 


[ 2 


I 2 


[ 3 


I 7 


Totals : 


[ 28.6 


I 28.6 


[ 42.9 


I 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



= 


4.95 


Valid cases = 


7 


= 


2 


Missing cases = 


1 






Response rate = 


87.5 % 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



81 



BY 



actual value of first place - (X Axis) 
actual number of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number I I I I 

Row % I II I 

Column % I I I I Row 

Total % I High I Medium I Low I Totals 

I II 1 1 

3 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 
I 50.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 
I 14.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 1 1 II 

4 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 1 
I 0.0 I 0.0 I 33.3 I 14.3 
I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 I 

I II II 1 

5 I 50.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 2 
I 50.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 28.6 
I 14.3 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 

I 1 1 II 

6 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 1 
- I 0.0 I 0.0 I 33.3 I 14.3 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 I 

I 1 II 1 

10 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 1 

I 0.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 

I 0.0 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 

I 1 1 1 

12 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 1 1 II 
1500 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 1 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 33.3 I 14.3 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 I 

Column I 21 21 31 7 

Totals I 28.6 I 28.6 I 42.9 I 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



= 10.49 
= 10 



Valid cases = 7 
Missing cases ■ 1 
Response rate ■ 87.5 % 



Caution: 18 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



82 



BY 



planned value of first place - (X Axis) 
planned area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number I I I I 

Row % I I I I 

Column % I I I I Row 

Total % I High I Mediun I Low I Totals 
j j j j 

I II 1 1 

Idea I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 

I 50.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 25.0 

I 25.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

j j 1 j 

I 1 1 2 1 

P1 ._ I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 2 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 50.0 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 50.0 I 

! j 1 j 

I II 1 1 

Project * 100 -° J °' I 0.0 I 1 

I 25.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I j j j 

Column I 21 01 21 4 
Totals I 50.0 I 0.0 I 50.0 I 100.0 



Chi square = 4 

Degrees of freedom = 2 



Valid cases = 4 
Missing cases ■ 4 
Response rate = 50.0 



% 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 column not included in Chi square calculations 



83 



BY 



actual value of first place - (X Axis) 
actual area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number 3 










Row % ] 










Column % ] 








I Row 


Total % ] 


: High 


I Medium '. 


Low 


I Totals 




[ 


i o : 


[ 






[ 0.0 


I 0.0 


[ 0.0 


I o 


Idea 


[ 0.0 


i o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 0.0 




[ 0.0 


i o.o : 


[ 0.0 






[ 1 


i l : 


[ 3 




Plan 


[ 20.0 
[ 50.0 


i 20.0 : 
i so.o : 


[ 60.0 
[ 100.0 


I 5 
I 71.4 




[ 14.3 


I 14.3 


[ 42.9 






[ 1 


i l ] 


[ 




Project 


C 50.0 
[ 50.0 


I 50.0 ] 
I 50.0 ] 


[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 2 
I 28.6 




t 14.3 


I 14.3 


[ 0.0 




Column j 


[ 2 


I 2 ] 


[ 3 


I 7 


Totals : 


[ 28.6 


I 28.6 ] 


[ 42.9 


I 100.0 



Chi square = 2.1 

Degrees of freedom = 2 



Valid cases = 7 
Missing cases = 1 
Response rate = 87.5 % 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



84 



BY 



planned total value of awards - (X Axis) 
actual total value of awards - (Y Axis) 



Number 




I 




I 




I 




Row % 




I 




I 




I 




Column % 




I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


: High 


I 

T 


Medium 


I 

T 


Low 


I 

T 


Total s 




[ 3 


I 





I 





I 






[ 100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


3 




[ 100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


42.9 


Hi gh 


[ 42.9 


I 
T 


0.0 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 






[ 


I 


3 


I 





I 






[ 0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


3 




[ 0.0 


I 


75.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


42.9 


Medium 


[ 0.0 


I 


42.9 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 






[ 


I 


1 


I 





I 






[ 0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


1 




[ 0.0 


I 


25.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


14.3 


Low 


[ 0.0 


I 
T 


14.3 


I 

T 


0.0 


I 

T 




Col umn 


[ 3 


I 


4 


I 





I 


7 


Total s 


[ 42.9 


I 


57.1 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 6.99 

Degrees of freedom = 2 



Valid cases ■ 7 
Missing cases = 1 
Response rate = 87.5% 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 column row not included in Chi square calculations 



85 



BY 



planned total awards value - (X Axis) 
planned approach - (Y Axis) 



Number 3 








I 




Row % ] 








I 




Column % ] 








I 


Row 


Total % ] 


: High : 


Med ium I 


Low 


I 


Totals 




C 2 3 


[ 2 I 





I 




Prize 


[ 50.0 3 


[ 50.0 I 


0.0 


I 


4 


[ 66.7 3 


[ 50.0 I 


0.0 


I 


57.1 




[ 28.6 


C 28.6 I 


0.0 


I 
-I- 






[ 3 


[ I 





I 




Commission '. 


C 0.0 3 
[ 0.0 3 


[ 0.0 I 

[ 0.0 I 


0.0 
0.0 


I 

I 



0.0 




[ 0.0 3 


[ 0.0 I 


0.0 


I 
-I- 

1 




. \ 


C 1 3 


[ 2 I 







Prize and 1 
Commission '. 


[ 33.3 3 


[ 66.7 I 


0.0 


I 


3 


[ 33.3 3 
[ 14.3 3 


[ 50.0 I 
[ 28.6 I 


0.0 

0.0 


I 

I 

-I- 

I 


42.9 


Column ] 


[ 3 : 


[ 4 I 





7 


Totals 3 


[ 42.9 3 


[ 57.1 I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 



Corrected Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



.1 
1 



Valid cases = 7 
Kissing cases = 1 
Response rate = 87.5 



o 

t> 



Caution: 4 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Kote: 1 column &1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



86 



BY 



actual total awards value - (X Axis) 
actual approach - (Y Axis) 



Number 
Row % 
Column % 
Total % 


r High : 


Medium ; 


Low 


I Row 
I Totals 


Prize 


I 2 ] 
I 50.0 ] 
I 66.7 3 
I 28.6 


[ 2 ] 
[ 50.0 ] 
[ 66.7 ] 
[ 28.6 ] 


C 
[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 4 
I 57.1 


Commission 


I o : 

I 0.0 ] 

i o.o : 

I 0.0 ] 


[ o : 

[ 0.0 ] 

c o.o : 

[ 0.0 ] 


[ 
[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 
[ 0.0 


I 
I 0.0 


Prize and 
Commission 


I 1 ] 

I 33.3 I 
I 33.3 ; 
I 14.3 


[ l : 

[ 33.3 ] 
[ 33.3 I 
[ 14.3 


[ 1 

[ 33.3 
[ 100.0 
[ 14.3 


I 3 
I 42.9 


Column 
Totals 


i 3 : 

I 42.9 : 


t 3 : 

[ 42.9 : 


[ 1 
C 14.3 


I 7 
I 100.0 



Chi square = 1.55 

Degrees of freedom ■ 2 



Valid cases = 7 
Missing cases = 1 
Response rate = 87 



5 % 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



87 






BY 



actual total awards value - (X Axis) 
actual number of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number I I I I 

Row % I I I I 

Column % I I I I Row 

Total % I High I Medium I Low I Totals 

I II 1 1 

3 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 
I 33.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 
I 14.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 1 II 1 

4 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 1 
I 0.0 I 33.3 I 0.0 I 14.3 
I 0.0 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 

I II 1 II 

5 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 50.0 I 2 
I 33.3 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 28.6 
I 14.3 I 0.0 I 14.3 I 

I II 1 1 

6 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 
I 33.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 
I 14.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 1 II 1 

10 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 1 

I 0.0 I 33.3 I 0.0 I 14.3 

I 0.0 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 

I 1 1 1 

12 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 1 II 1 
1500 

I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 1 

I 0.0 I 33.3 I 0.0 I 14.3 

I 0.0 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 

Column I 31 31 II 7 

Totals I 42.9 I 42.9 I 14.3 I 100.0 



Chi square = 9.33 

Degrees of freedom = 10 



Valid cases = 7 
Kissing cases = 1 
Response rate = 87.5 % 



Caution: 18 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



88 



BY 



planned total awards value - (X Axis) 
planned area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number 










Row % 










Column % 








I Row 


Total % 


i High : 


Medium ! 


Low 


I Totals 




i 1 ] 


[ ] 


[ o 






I 100.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 1 


Idea 


I 33.3 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 14.3 




I 14.3 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 






I 1 ] 


[ 3 ] 


[ 






I 25.0 ] 


[ 75.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 4 


Plan 


I 33.3 ] 


[ 75.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 57.1 




I 14.3 ] 


[ 42.9 ] 


[ 0.0 






I l : 


[ 1 3 


[ 




Project 


I 50.0 ] 


[ 50.0 j 


[ 0.0 


I 2 




I 33.3 ] 


[ 25.0 ] 


t 0.0 


I 28.6 




I 14.3 : 


[ 14.3 : 


t 0.0 




Column 


I 3 : 


[ 4 : 


[ 


I 7 


Totals 


I 42.9 


[ 57.1 : 


[ 0.0 


I 100.0 



Chi square = 1.89 

Degrees of freedom = 2 



Valid cases = 7 
Missing cases = 1 
Response rate = 87.5 % 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 column not included in Chi square calculations 



89 



BY 



actual total awards value - (X Axis) 
actual area of design concern - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 






I 




I 




Row % ] 






I 




I 




Column % ] 






I 




I 


Row 


Total % ] 


: High : 


Medium 


I 


Low 


I 


Totals 




L ] 


[ 


I 





I 




Idea 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 







[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 




[ 0.0 ] 


t 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 






[ 2 I 


[ 3 


I 





I 




Plan : 


[ 40.0 : 


[ 60.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


5 




[ 66.7 : 


[ 100.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


71.4 




[ 28.6 : 


[ 42.9 


I 


0.0 


I 






[ i : 


[ 


I 


1 


I 






[ 50.0 : 


[ 0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


2 


Project 


[ 33.3 


[ 0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


28.6 




[ 14.3 


[ 0.0 


I 

— T_ 


14.3 


I 




Column : 


[ 3 


[ 3 


I 


1 


I 


7 


Totals : 


[ 42.9 


[ 42.9 


I 


14.3 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 3.73 

Degrees of freedom = 2 



Valid cases = 7 
Kissing cases = 1 
Response rate = 87.5 



% 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note; 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



90 



BY 



planned number of prizes - (X Axis) 
actual number of prizes - (Y Axis) 



Number III 

Row % I I I 

Column % I I I Row 

Total % I II 6 1 Totals 

I II 1 

1 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 1 

I 100.0 I 0.0 I 33.3 

I 33.3 J 0.0 I 

I 1 1 

3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 
I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 
I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 1 1 

4 I 0.01 0.01 
J 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 
J 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 1 II 

5 I 0.0 I 300.0 I 1 
I 0.0 I 50.0 I 33.3 
I 0.0 I 33.3 I 

I CI II 

6 I 0.0 ] 100.0 I 1 
I 0.0 I 50.0 I 33.3 
I 0.0 I 33.3 I 

Column I II 2 1 3 

Totals I 33.3 I 66.7 I 100.0 



Chi square = 2.99 

Degrees of freedom = 2 



Valid cases = 3 
Missing cases = 5 
Response rate = 37.5 



% 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Mote: 2 rows not included in. Chi square calculations 



91 



BY 



actual number of prizes - (X Axis) 
actual number of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number I I I I I I 

Row % I I I I I I 

Column % I I I I I I Row 

Total %I II 31 41 51 61 Totals 

I II 01 01 01 01 

3 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 
I 50.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 12.5 
I 12.5 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 01 01 II 01 01 

4 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 
I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 12.5 
I 0.0 I 0.0 I 12.5 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I II 01 01 II 01 

5 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 2 
I 50.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 33.3 I 0.0 I 25.0 
I 12.5 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 12.5 I 0.0 I 

I 01 01 01 01 II 

6 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 1 
I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 12.5 
I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 12.5 I 

I 01 01 01 II 01 

10 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 1 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 33.3 I 0.0 I 12.5 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 12.5 I 0.0 I 

I 01 II 01 01 01 

12 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 

I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 12.5 

I 0.0 I 12.5 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 01 01 01 II 01 
1500 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 1 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 33.3 I 0.0 I 12.5 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 12.5 I 0.0 I 

Column I 21 II II 31 II 8 

Totals I 25.0 I 12.5 I 12.5 I 37.5 I 12.5 I 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



= 28.66 
= 24 



Valid cases = 8 
Missing cases = 
Response rate = 100.0 % 



Caution: 35 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



92 



BY 



planned number of prizes - (X Axis) 
planned value of first place - (Y Axis) 



Number I 




I 




I 




Row % I 




I 




I 




Column % I 




I 




I 


Row 


Total % I 


1 


I 


6 


I 


Totals 




1 


I 


1 


I 




High 3 


50.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


2 




: ioo.o 


I 


50.0 


I 


66.7 




33.3 


I 


33.3 


I 






[ 


I 


1 


I 






[ 0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


1 


Medium 


[ 0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


33.3 




[ 0.0 


I 


33.3 


I 






r o 


I 





I 






I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 





Low 


I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 




I 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 




Column 


E 1 


I 


2 


I 


3 


Totals 


I 33.3 


I 


66.7 


I 


100.0 



Corrected Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



.18 

1 



Valid cases = 3 
Missing cases = 5 
Response rate = 37.5 % 



Caution: 4 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



93 



BY 



actual number of prizes - (X Axis) 
actual value of first place - (Y Axis) 



Number I 




I 




I 




I 




I 
I 
I 
I 




I 
I 
I 

I 




Row % I 

Column % I 
Total % I 


1 


I 
I 
I 


3 


I 
I 
I 


4 


I 
I 
I 


5 


6 


Row 
Totals 




1 


I 





I 





I 


1 


I 





I 






50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


2 


High j 


50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


33.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


28.6 




: 14.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


14.3 


I 


0.0 


I 









I 





I 


1 


I 


1 


I 


1 


I 






t 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


33.3 


I 


33.3 


I 


33.3 


I 


3 


Medium \ 


t 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


100.0 


I 


33.3 


I 


100.0 


I 


42.9 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


14.3 


I 


14.3 


I 


14.3 


I 






[ 1 


I 





I 





I 


1 


I 





I 






[ 50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


50. C 


I 


0.0 


I 


2 


Low 


E 50.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


33.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


2C6 




I 14.3 


I 


0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 


14.3 


I 


0.0 


I 




Column 
Totals 


I 2 
I 28.6 


I 
I 



0.0 


I 
I 


1 

14.3 


I 

I 


3 
42.9 


I 
I 


1 
14.3 


I 
I 


7 
100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



4.27 
6 



Valid cases ■ 
Missing cases ■ 
Response rate = 



7 
1 
87.5 % 



ution: 12 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
te: 1 column not included in Chi square calculations 



94 



II 



BY 



Number 
Row % 
Column % 
Total % 



8 



Column 
Totals 



types of public 
types of public 








0.0 
0.0 
0.0 



1 

50.0 

33.3 
14.3 



1 

100.0 

33.3 

14.3 



1 
50.0 
33.3 
14.3 




0.0 
0.0 
0.0 



3 
42.9 





0.0 
0.0 

0.0 




0.0 
0.0 
0.0 





0.0 
0.0 
0.0 



1 

50.0 

100.0 

14.3 




0.0 
0.0 
0.0 



1 

34.3 



ty planned comp/resu3ts - (X Axis) 
ty used comp/results - (Y Axis) 




0.0 
0.0 
0.0 




0.0 
0.0 
0.0 



c 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 




0.0 
0.0 
0.0 



1 

100.0 

100.0 

14.3 



1 

14.3 



1 

100.0 

50.0 

14.3 



1 
50.0 
50.0 
14.3 




0.0 
0.0 
0.0 




0.0 
0.0 
0.0 



c 

0.0 
0.0 
0.0 



2 
28.6 



Row 

Totals 



1 
14.3 



2 

28.6 



1 
34.3 



2 
28.6 



1 
34.3 



7 
300.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



= 13.41 
= 12 



Valid cases = 7 
Missing cases = 1 
Response rate - 87.5 I 



Caution: 20 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



95 



types of publicity used comp/results - (X Axis) 

BY 

actual number of entrants - (Y Axis) 

Number I I I I I I 

Row % I I I I I I 

Column % I I I I I I Row 

Total %I 31 41 61 71 81 Totals 

I 01 01 01 II 01 

3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 1 
I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 
I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 

I 01 01 II 01 01 

4 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 
I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 
I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 01 II 01 01 II 

5 I 0.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 50.0 I 2 
I 0.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 28.6 
I 0.0 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 I 

I II 01 01 01 01 

6 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 
I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 
I 14.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 01 01 01 II 01 

10 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 1 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 

I 01 01 01 01 01 

12 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 01 II 01 01 01 
1500 

I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 

I 0.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 

I 0.0 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

Column I II 21 II 21 II 7 

Totals I 14.3 I 28.6 I 14.3 I 28.6 I 14.3 I 100.0 

Chi square = 22.74 Valid cases = 7 

Degrees of freedom = 20 Missing cases = 1 



Response rate = 



87.5 % 



Caution: 30 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 row not included in Chi square calculations 



96 



types of publicity used jcomp/results - (X Axis) 
BY - - - - 

actual number of attendees - (Y Axis) 

Number I I I I I I 

Row % I I I I I I 

Column % I I I I I I Row 

Total % I 31 41 61 71 81 Totals 
1 1 ! j ! j 

I II 01 01 01 01 

300 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 

I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 

I 14.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

j j j j j j 

I 01 01 01 II 01 

450 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 1 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 

j j ! j j x 

I 01 01 01 II 01 

500 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 1 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 

j ! j j j j 

I 01 01 01 01 II 

1200 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 1 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 100.0 I 14.3 

I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 I 

I j 1 ! ! 1 

I 01 II 01 01 01 

2300 

I 0.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 1 

I 0.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 14.3 

I 0.0 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

I 1 j j j j 

I 01 II II 01 01 

5000 

I 0.0 I 50.0 I 50.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 2 

I 0.0 I 50.0 I 100.0 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 28.6 

I 0.0 I 14.3 I 14.3 I 0.0 I 0.0 I 

j ! 1 j j j 

Column I II 21 II 21 II 7 

Totals I 14.3 I 28.6 I 14.3 I 28.6 I 14.3 I 100.0 



Chi square 
Degrees of freedom 



22.75 
20 



Valid cases = 7 
Kissing cases = 1 
Response rate = 87.5 



Caution: 30 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



97 





planned publicil 


:y value ■ 


- (X Axis 


BY 


— 










types of public. 


Lty planned comp/r 


Number ! 










Row % ] 










Column % : 








[ Row 


Total % ] 


: High : 


' Medium '. 


[ Low '. 


[ Totals 




[ ] 


[ 1 ] 


2 ] 







[ 0.0 ] 


[ 33.3 ] 


L 66.7 ] 


3 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ 50.0 ] 


t 50.0 ] 


42.9 




[ 0.0 ] 


C 14.3 


[ 28.6 ] 






[ ] 


[ 3 


[ 1 ] 




1 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 100.0 ] 


C 1 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 25.0 ] 


[ 14.3 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 14.3 ] 






[ ] 


[ i : 


[ ] 




2 


[ 0.0 ] 


t ioo.o : 


t 0.0 : 


[ 1 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ 50.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 14.3 




[ 0.0 ] 


C 14.3 


[ 0.0 j 






[ i : 


[ o : 


c i : 




3 


C 50.0 ] 


[ o.o : 


c 50.0 : 


t 2 




[ 100.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


[ 25.0 : 


I 28.6 




[ 14.3 ] 


[ o.o : 


[ 14.3 




Column ] 


[ 1 ] 


[ 2 : 


[ 4 


I 7 


Totals ] 


[ 14.3 ] 


[ 28.6 : 


[ 57.1 


[ 100.0 



- (Y Axis) 



Chi square = 6.12 

degrees of freedom = 6 



Valid cases = 7 
Missing cases = 1 
Response rate = 87.5 % 



Caution: 12 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 



98 



I 
I 



- - BY 



actual publicity value - (X Axis) 

types of publicity used comp/results - (Y Axis) 



Number ] 








I 




Row % ] 








I 




Column % ] 








I 


Row 


Total % ] 


: High ; 


Medium ■ 


Low 


I 


Totals 




[ 1 ] 


[ o : 


[ 


I 




3 ] 


: ioo.o ] 


[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 


1 




: ioo.o ] 


[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 


33.3 




33.3 ] 


[ o.o : 


t 0.0 


I 
-I- 






[ ] 


[ o : 


[ 1 


I 




4 


t 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


[ 100.0 


I 


1 




[ 0.0 ] 


c 0.0 


[ 50.0 


I 


33.3 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 33.3 


I 
-I- 






[ o : 


[ o : 


[ 


I 




6 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 







C 0.0 I 


C 0.0 I 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 




[ 0.0 


[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 
-I- 






[ o : 


[ o : 


[ 1 


I 




7 : 


c 0.0 


[ 0.0 


[ 100.0 


I 


1 




[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


[ 50.0 


I 


33.3 




[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 I 


[ 33.3 


I 






e o : 


[ o : 


[ 


I 




8 


[ 0.0 


r o.o 


[ 0.0 


I 







[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 




L 0.0 


r o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 
-I- 




Column : 


r l 


[ o : 


t 2 


I 


3 


Totals 


[ 33.3 


[ o.o : 


[ 66.7 


I 


100.0 



Chi square = 2.99 

Degrees of freedom = 2 



Valid cases = 3 
Missing cases = 5 
Response rate = 37.5 



o 
•6 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 column & 2 rows not included in Chi square calculations 



99 



BY 



actual publicity value - (X Axis) 
actual number of entrants - (Y Axis) 



Number ; 






I 






Row % 






I 






Column % : 






I 




t Row 


Total % 


: High ; 


[Medium 


I 


Low 


[ Totals 




[ o : 


[ 


I 







3 


[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


I 




[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


r o.o 




[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 






[ ] 


[ 


I 







4 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


[ 




[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 


[ 0.0 




C 0.0 I 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 






[ ] 


[ 


I 


i : 




5 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


ioo.o : 


[ 1 




[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 


50.0 : 


[ 33.3 




[ o.o : 


[ 0.0 


I 


33.3 






[ l ] 


[ 


I 


] 




6 


[ 100.0 ] 


C 0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


[ 1 




[ 100.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


[ 33.3 




[ 33.3 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 

-I- 


0.0 ] 






[ ] 


[ 


I 


1 ] 




10 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


100.0 ] 


: 1 




C 0.0 ] 


C 0.0 


I 


50.0 ] 


33.3 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 
-I- 


33.3 ] 




■ 


[ ] 


[ c 


I 


] 




12 


[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 







C 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


0.0 




[ 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 
-I- 


0.0 ] 






: o ] 


: o 


I 


] 




1500 














: o.o i 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 ] 







C 0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


0.0 




: o.o ] 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 1 




Column ] 


: l ] 





I 


2 1 


3 


Totals ] 


: 33.3 ] 


0.0 


I 


66.7 I 


100.0 



Chi square = 2.99 

Degrees of freedom = 2 



Valid cases = 3 
Missing cases = 5 
Response rate = 37.5 % 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 column & 4 rows not included in Chi square calculations 

!C0 



BY 



actual publicity value - (X Axis) 
actual number of attendees - (Y Axis) 



Number ; 




I 








Row % 




I 








Column % 




I 






I Row 


Total % 


[ High 


I 


Medium 3 


Low 


I Totals 




[ 1 


I 


o : 


[ 




300 : 


[ 100.0 


I 


0.0 I 


[ 0.0 


I 1 




[ 100.0 


I 


0.0 ] 


[ 0.0 


I 33.3 




[ 33.3 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 0.0 






L 


I 


o : 


[ 




450 3 


[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 0.0 


I C 




C 0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 0.0 


I 0.0 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


C 0.0 






[ 


I 


3 


[ 1 




500 : 


t 0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 100.0 


I 1 




C 0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 50.0 


I 33.3 




C 0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 33.3 






[ 


I 


3 


[ 




1200 














[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


C 0.0 


I 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 0.0 


I 0.0 




[ 0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 0.0 






[ 


I 


3 


[ 1 




2300 














: o.o 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 100.0 


I 1 




0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 50.0 


I 33.3 




0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 33.3 









I 


3 


[ 




5000 














0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 0.0 


I 




0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 0.0 


I 0.0 




0.0 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 0.0 




Column ] 


1 


I 


3 


[ 2 


I 3 


Totals ] 


: 33.3 


I 


0.0 3 


[ 66.7 


I 100.0 



Chi square = 2.99 

Degrees of freedom = 2 



Valid cases = 3 
Missing cases = 5 
Response rate = 37.5 % 



Caution: 6 cells contain an expected frequency less than 5 
Note: 1 column & 3 rows not included in Chi square calculations 



101