The data analysis methods needed to be coherent with the choices made at earlier stages of the research onion (Saunders et al., 2012). Action research aims to simultaneously assist in practical problem-solving, while expanding scientific knowledge (Rapoport, 1970). However, the same analysis and data is not necessarily of interest to all parties. This project distinguishes between the learning and analysis that took place in relation to the area of concern (UK Police Force) and the methodology (WASAN) and framework of ideas (learning about the theory of PSMs). Each of these components was analysed in a different manner and had a different emphasis at different points of the project; these different types of analysis are discussed below.
3.10.1 Analysis of the area of concern
Action research is a collaboration between the researcher who brings expert knowledge and the organisation that brings contextual knowledge. This partnership must be mutually desirable (Foster, 1972) and therefore the organisational partner must derive some benefit, that is, learning from the analysis of their context. The WASAN analytical methodology aimed to identify recommendations which could be used by the police force to reduce wasted time in the analysed unit. The WASAN process of analysis is described in Chapter 4.
This data analysis was carried out throughout the data collection phase. Much of the modelling took place in real time (Ackermann & Eden, 2001) and the
model was built with the participants face-to-face. The outputs and
recommendations for the project were written up into a final report. This created the impetus for immediate action (Hult & Lennung, 1980) for the police force, thereby implying that they could implement actions at their discretion.
3.10.2 Analysis of the methodology
The WASAN methodology was limited in the area of concern at the beginning of the project. The approach was context-specific and built for the nuclear industry (Shaw & Blundell, 2010), consequently, it was not suitably generic to be successfully implemented at the police force without development. The process of development was subject to analysis using action research. Learning in action research “requires intellectual reflection on the experience and that in turn requires the establishment of concepts so that ‘what has been learned’ can be known and made explicit” (Wilson, 1990 p.3). Drawing from Cunningham (1976), this project used learning loops where a plan was created; this plan is put in action and then reformulated based upon reflections. The plan was how WASAN would be operationalised in the unit of analysis. After each intervention, the researcher reflected critically on the how the relative success or failure of how the plan translated into reality. Where elements did not work as intended, the researcher revisited interview recordings, notes, and original literature to understand why.
During the Call Handling Pilot Study three participants were interviewed to
understand how useful they found the WASAN process to diagnose which elements required further development. Based on these reflections and investigations, the plan of how WASAN was to be used was updated (reformulated) and a new learning loop was started. This analysis needed to take place as the project was progressing. At each phase, new learning was identified and implemented in accordance with the traditions of action research. In this manner, the development of the WASAN approach led to a greater understanding of the methodology. However, the central aim of this thesis was to critically analyse the underpinning philosophical, theoretical, and methodological features of PSMs. These are encapsulated in the framework of ideas and the analysis of this is considered next.
3.10.3 Analysis of the framework of ideas
Analysis of the underpinning framework of ideas was central to the answering of these research questions. The analysis for each of these questions (which in some part relates to the framework of ideas for PSMs) is discussed below and discussed in relation to the established literature in the discussion chapter.
The answer to RQ1 has already been considered in the Literature Review
and so is not considered here. RQ2 is “How can PSMs be developed into suitably
generic approaches applicable in multiple problem contexts?”. To answer this question, the project made a comparison between the elements which has been changed from the original context and those which remained the same. Comparing the two different types of elements enabled identification of similarities and differences between the two categories. These were explored in relation to WASAN and the implications of this for the approach.
RQ3 asks “How can an approach show it has the defining features of
PSMs?”. To answer this question, the project revisited the data from the study through the lens of the 15 questions in the four pillar framework. Using examples from the study, the 15 questions were worked through systematically to ensure that all elements were identified.
RQ4 is “Can philosophical, theoretical and methodological contributions identified in one PSM be shown as relevant in others, thus showing a common framework?”. To answer this question, the project explored the notion of the expanded system. After the analysis of the individual system was completed, further analysis was conducted to identify how to reduce waste across the network of the four modelled systems. That is, individual units could affect the performance and compromised other units’ performance; thus, further analysis at this higher level was required to understand this and provide a broader range of options to the police
force. As the main focus for analysis, the four individual units occupy recursion
Level 1 (using Jackson's (2003) classification); thus, Customer Contact occupies
Level 0 and individual staff within each Level 1 unit occupy Level 2. Constructing four separate Level 1 models would fail to identify the systemic complexity arising
from their mutual reliance. Building a single Level 0 Customer Contact model would
include elements that are irrelevant to our project and potentially cloud issues. Thus, the integrity of the four individual models had to be protected (to understand each unit) whilst building models that could be combined (to understand the interactions between units).
The data was re-examined to identify any comments on interactions between the four individually modelled units. Any information which was not relevant within the model boundary but was argued by the participant to influence (or be
influenced by) other units using other models was recorded. For example, Call
Handling identified Switchboard as a source of waste when they receive ‘incorrect calls from Switchboard’. Thus, instead of only considering the information within Call Handling the model also considers it atSwitchboard. To identify the relevance of this to the underpinning framework of PSMs, examples of similar model building approaches were sought from the literature.