3.5.1 Strengths and Limitations of Action Research (AR)
AR was used as it allowed collaborative implementation of the lean approach whilst enabling all parties to iteratively learn from and build on the implementation. There are acknowledged strengths and weaknesses in the AR method. One strength is that AR is a participatory process. But there are perceived weaknesses with the approach. AR is sometimes criticised as being unscientific and has found itself excluded from the forum of organizational scholarly research (Coughlan 2011).
Coghlan and Brannick (2012) note the use of the following to ensure rigour. Firstly, the researcher needs to demonstrate how the multiple cycles were undertaken and how it was shown that this was a true reflection of what happened. Also, one should challenge and test one’s assumptions using process and premise reflection. This was achieved by undertaking six distinct cycles where a clear distinction demonstrated between constructing, planning, taking action and evaluation. Qualitative data for analysis including interviews, informal discussions, observation and quantitative data. Quantitative data included metrics produced as the LPS was implemented over the course of the AR cycles. Furthermore, reflection sections were used to reflect on what went well and what had gone badly over the course of each cycle.
Krefting (1991), notes that rigour is demonstrated by credibility which refers to the confidence the researcher has about the findings. Several strategies are proposed, including, prolonged engagement with informants, peer examination and reflexivity. Rigour was demonstrated by prolonged engagement with informants over an 18-month period. Peer examination was achieved through meetings and skype calls with the academic and industry supervisors. Furthermore, the researcher had daily contact with the onsite facilitator (SC 01). He continuously provided feedback, and fact checking, affording technical and historical knowledge about the plant, whilst discussing and critiquing the researcher’s perceptions of the workforce culture and ability. Furthermore, the researcher forwarded a weekly report to the industrial supervisor (SC 02), with findings and observations examined. The findings were discussed where factual errors about the plant, process and workforce were identified and findings discussed and critiqued in weekly skype calls. Reflexivity was obtained using a research diary, with contemporaneous observations written in longhand, for transcription later, into a word document. Data was collated from conversations, non-participant observations at early morning prestart site meetings, observation of the
60
workforce as they carried out on site activities, attendance at the pre-start H&S briefings, at planning meetings, at daily pre-start meetings where previous progress on each shift was reported on and the upcoming shifts progress anticipated and discussed. Writing observations involves reworking of field notes to provide meaningful evidence (Jarzabkowski et al., 2014). Therefore, the “hard copy” field notes were completed as soon as possible after each day’s fieldwork. This consisted of two data types. Firstly, the hand-written field notes were transcribed. Secondly, early analysis involved reflections on outcomes where emerging topics were noted at the document’s margin. Reflexivity was also achieved by using memos reflecting on what went well and what went badly.
3.5.2 Collecting Data
Quantitative data was extracted from a broad range of documentation. This included project variation information (PVI), where 29,000 hours of delay data had been collated over a nine-month period.
Further documentation included “lessons learned” workshops; productivity norms and a time and motion study of the LNG 2 shutdown, collected during the ongoing refurbishment program between 2012 and 2013. Other documents and artefacts included photographs, primavera schedules and meeting minutes. Primary quantitative data sources included WWP planning data and researcher time and motion studies.
Quantitative and qualitative data was obtained from the AR cycles, which were cyclical and iterative in nature with the outcomes from one cycle informing the development of the plan in the following cycle.
The people involved in these cycles included scaffolders, mechanical workers, grit blasters, painters, cladders, Inlecs (instrumentation and electrical workers), inspectors, supervisors, superintendents, managers, planners and project engineers (PEs). Qualitative data was collated from observation, participant observation, conversations, formal and informal meetings was recorded contemporaneously using a research journal. Primary quantitative data was also collated from the implementation of the LPS and secondary data from SC documentation and CPM reporting. Data details including research particulars detailing meetings and workshops (table 4.1), action research participation (table 4.2) and research summary (table 4.3) are tabulated in chapter 4.
61
3.5.3 Analysing the Data
Khan and Tzortzopoulos (2016) note that whilst AR can be used in evaluating implementation of lean construction, there is still no convention for evaluating outcomes, so lean researchers must develop their own set of criteria. The researcher developed criteria over a period aided by discussions with the academic and industrial supervisors, literature review, and trial and error followed by reflection.
Coding was used to analyse the data collected (figures 3:2, 3:3, 3:4). Coding facilitates the extraction of meaning from the large amount of data collated during primary research. Saldana says a code in qualitative enquiry is:
Most often a word or short phrase that symbolically assigns a summative, salient, essence-capturing and/or evocative attribute for a portion of language based or visual data. The data can consist of interview transcripts, participant observation field notes, documents, drawings, artefacts photos….and so on. (Saldana 2013, p.3).
Miles and Huberman (1994) notes that as soon as information is compiled during the research, challenges appear as information and data build up. Therefore, codes are required for organisation and sense making purposes and these are:
Tags and labels for assigning units of meaning to the descriptive or inferential information compiled during a study (Miles and Huberman 1994, p.56)
Topic coding was used to identify emerging topics, particularly those identified in the research journal.
Finally, thematic coding was used to identify emerging themes in the semi-structured interviews (figure 3:4). Quantitative data was collated and analysed for trends using graphs. Data from each cycle was analysed for outcomes and trends using colour coding for the analysis (figure 3:2)
Code Description
Improvement required Improvements required due to a lack of engagement, understanding or training.
Some visible improvements/
engagement Some limited development of good practice demonstrated by engagement by some participants.
Improvement in Practice Improvements with positive engagement by most of participants including last planner, demonstrated by observation or data.
Good practice Engagement by all or almost all participants. Consistent high PPC metrics achieved. Participants on time and engaged in forums including WWP meetings and daily huddles (DH).
Evolution in practice Development of the tools to suit the work environment. Autonomous workforce development of lean approaches or tools.
Figure 3:2: AR Colour Coding
62
The following coding used in the analysis of AR cycles, with some developed from literature and the rest developed inductively.
Code Description
Embedment Setback Instances where the implementation appeared to be failing
Engagement Instances where people demonstrated positive engagement with the lean tools.
Evolution of Practice Demonstration of unexpected development of the tools by people interfacing with and utilising the tools
Informal Leaders: Instances where informal leaders would exert their influence.
Lack of Training A lack of appropriate training preventing people from performing optimally Lack of knowledge A lack of knowledge on an area of expertise such as scheduling
Management Influence Instances where management exerted influence
Observable impact Instances where the embedment of a lean tool demonstrated positive outcomes.
Previous lean/lean type experience:
Demonstrations by the workforce and management of previous experience with lean type approaches
Resistance Explicit and sometimes subtler resistance to the implementation of the tools by the workforce and management
Synchronisation People interacting and synchronising activities, including arriving on time at DHs, leaders stepping forward, participants offering assistance
Team Autonomy Observed ability of a team to conceptualise and independently develop the tools, even at some stages developing unexpected variants.
Use of Language The changes in language use particularly as the tools gained acceptance SC Support Support offered by SC management and supervisory teams
Plant Complexity Complexity of the plant which included many interrelated and complex process Figure 3:3 AR cycle coding
Sources where data was collected were coded as follows; reflective memo (MEMO), meeting (MEET), daily huddle (DH), Weekly Work Plan meetings (WWP), primary and secondary documentation (DOC), e-mails (e-mail). Codes developed in figure 3:3 were also used in the analysis of the observational findings. The methods and forums uses to gather data were coded as follows observation (OBS), conversations (CON), H&S pre-start (HSP), meeting (MEET), Weekly Work Plan meeting (WWP).
The semi-structured interview comments (COM) were assessed and analysed using the following codes (figure 3:4), developed literature and inductively.
Code Description
Logic Evidence of logical plans and schedules Experience Experience levels demonstrated.
Training Training requirements
Knowledge Knowledge levels demonstrated
Links Use of activity links especially the practice where links are removed in a schedule to make it “work”
Reporting Alignment of reporting with “reality”
63
Software usefulness The relevance and fit for purpose of the Primavera software Data Data collection methods used
Figure 3:4-Semi structure interview coding