Action Case

Vidgen and Braa (1997) argued that action case draws from the strengths of both action research and case study as a hybrid method. They further argued that it will take from the tradition associated with action research a concern with building the future through purposeful change, as well as maintaining an interest on the historic conditions in which the research is set (Vidgen and Braa, 1997). The difference between action case and action research is that there

76

is only one cycle required in action case, whilst action research can go indefinitely or have at least two iterations.

In figure 3.1, action case is positioned in relation to other research methodology options. Field experiment is aligned with prediction, case study aligned with understanding and action research with change so as to identify the research method with the research framework. Hard case and quasi-experiments have a less pure basis with respect to the ideal types of research outcome (Vidgen and Braa, 1997). As a result of this outcome, are placed in the triangle such that hard case is represented as a mix of understanding and prediction and quasi-experiment as a mix of change and prediction. Alternatively, action case represents a mix of understanding and change.

Fig. 3.1 Action Case method from Vidgen and Braa (1997)

Change is important in the current study and it can only happen once; hence, this research will be using action case methodology. The researcher is also taking an active part in the process hence the action can be both researched and implemented in practice.

As mentioned in section 3.2 above, interpretivism ontology assumes a subjective reality as seen by individuals, because it is socially constructed and as a result, leads to the assumption of

Action Research

Hard Case Field

Experiment _Case Soft Action Case Quasi- experiment Change Prediction Understanding

77

supported by Interpretivism, small teams were formed to ensure that clear understanding of humans in their role as social contributors were achieved and therefore understanding the meanings and perceptions which individuals attach to phenomena. The implementation of action case was through active participation of the researcher in pre-adoption decision making process of an ERP system. The researcher was conducting academic study as well as working in a team comprising of organisational staff and third party members. This allowed the researcher to advance theoretical understanding of the subject area and affect change in the action case organisation.

The process of data gathering was done by conducting interviews with key stakeholders and staff using the various systems at Alpha, the action case organisation. Close involvement was important in this research because the researcher’s involvement has a strength of providing an in-depth access to people, issues and data as suggested by Walsham (2006). Interviews with staff were organized so that they did not cause any down time in the process. Interviews were then reproduced and validated by following the same process on the relevant system and given to staff to re-validate the documentation, following Miles and Huberman (1994). The data collected was used again to produce a VSM of the present and future processes state, identifying areas of waste within the present business processes used in modelling the adopted solution. Features required by the company’s strategic plans, such as enabling electronic time sheets submission by engineers etc, were among features identified for the desired features list. As discussed in chapter two, VSM is used in research to diagrammatically represent and analyse information obtained via semi-structured interviews and questionnaires to visualise and develop the current business processes called current state (Lasa et al., 2008b). Analysis of an SME’s current state is achievable with the support of enthusiastic stakeholders, and this current state analysis is important for the identification of areas of waste and areas for improvement, which can then be used to develop the organisation towards target state (Hines et al., 1999). The target, future state business analysis can be instrumental in developing appropriate systems for hybrid service and manufacturing organisations. The development of an appropriate system is necessary where off-the-shelf ERP systems fail to adequately meet the business process needs of the organisation. This study will show how the information gathered as a result of developing

78

the VSM and output from the VSM was used as a guide for the customisation of SAP Business One in the absence of a suitable off the shelf solution.

3.3.4.1 Single case justification

As mentioned earlier in this chapter, this research adopts a single case study within an independent service and manufacturing SME based in the UK. This approach was deemed appropriate as a result of the research aims and due to the close interaction required between the researcher and the study. As the case study is a hybrid service and manufacturing SME, this form of business process is unique, and so a single case is the best approach. One argument against single case approach is that they cannot be used for generalisation (Themistocleous and Corbitt, 2006), however Oates (2006), Eisenhardt (1989), Rowley (2002) and Eisenhardt and Graebner (2007), argues that generalisation can also be made based on similarities between the organisations. The similarities between organisations include type of business and business locations, which are useful while generalising to theory of OIPT, VSM and hybrid service and manufacturing SMEs.

Gibb and Wilkins (1991) have argued that the multiple case neglects some of the classic strengths of case studies in three critical areas: the first, the in-depth study of a single case against the study of multiple cases; the second, telling of a good story against the creating of good construct; the third, deep versus surface descriptions. Gill (1995), in favour of this study, argued that this is enough reason to use single case approach in order to get detailed in-depth information for testing a theory or developing a new theory especially using action case.

Another argument against case study is that it takes a long time to be completed (Teegavarapu and Summers, 2008). This favours the choice of single case since the study requires extensive resources in order to gather the appropriate information required to evaluate the potential systems. As a result of the amount of resources required to effectively carry out the research being high, the option of having a similar type of organisation that is going through the process of adopting an ERP system becomes difficult. Choosing a single case wisely, as stated by Teegavarapu and Summers (2008), can have the same effect as Galileo’s view of gravity which

79