Case study preparation

In a first phase, several meetings were scheduled to fully prepare for the research project. These included meetings with General Management and Operational Management. During these sessions the scope, interdependences, timing, budget and approach were fine-tuned between

the two case organizations and its academic partners. Coordinating meetings were organized during which all participants were informed on the project and given the possibility to ask questions or provide feedback and additional remarks. These initial meetings formed the basis of further coordination of the research. Besides, we were granted full access to both the organization’s company intranet so that we could consult all incident management related documents, including tutorials, process descriptions, legacy data etc. Besides, we had at our disposal all necessary resources (desk, PC, internet connection, print and Xerox facilities, access badge etc).

5.2.2 Researcher – subject interaction Action research

If we want to do as we preach, our research had to reflect the characteristics of dynamics and emergence. At the same time, it had to be conducted in narrow collaboration with the organizations in which and for which it had been done. As we have argued above, this did not call for a mere quantitative or empiricist approach, but for a qualitative, ethnographic one (Woodward, 2001, p. 294). Therefore, asking people in a straightforward manner how they see things is not the right approach. Building an understanding of how they see things – in concert with them – is. This approach is generally described as action research, a technique involving researchers and practitioners in iterations of problem diagnosis, action intervention, and reflective learning. Action research combines theory and practice, researchers and practitioners (Avison, Lau, Myers, & Nielsen, 1999, p. 94). The particular approach we have taken in our study is a derivative form of this general action research tradition, with an emphasis on the fact that the researcher interacts with the research participants. We are convinced that “data are not just sitting there waiting to be gathered, like rocks on the seashore” (Klein & Myers, 1999, p. 74).

Instead, data are produced in a social interaction (Klein et al., 1999, p. 74) (Klein et al., 1999, p.

74)of the researchers with the participants. Since action research is “continuously refining methods, data, and interpretation in subsequent cycles, in the light of the understanding developed in the earlier cycles” (Kasunic, 2005, p. 112), this approach suits the hermeneutic research style well. Worth mentioning is that on many occasions, two researchers collaborated on these cases. This constellation of working as a team offered broader opportunity to capture greater richness of data and to rely more confidently its accuracy (Benbasat, Goldstein, & Mead, 1987).

Ethnographic field study

No research remains free from simplification because researchers tend to bring in line their findings with their theory. It could be assumed (hopefully) that this is mainly due to the need to fit the research data in the research framework. This simplification is normal since in many cases research-opportunity does not offer the possibility to spend a lot of time in the ‘bowel’ of the organization. Some of the reasons for this are listed below:

- The time window often might be too small to get the occasion to spend a lot of time at the place the research is about. This especially is the case when investigating several organizations at the same time.

- The level of confidence to do research is sufficient to get full co-operation, but most organizations probably will feel they can do without someone looking over their shoulder, certainly, when this occurs at unexpected moments.

Unfortunately, it is only by talking to organization members about how things really are, what gives sense to what people do, by asking questions and dialoguing with others, that the ‘as-is’

(IST) can be distinguished from the ‘to-be’ (SOLL). The only way of getting to know whether there is a deviation between the way procedures are used (IST) and how they are supposed to be used (SOLL) is by ‘sacrificing’ valuable research time in order to gain enough confidence and finding the right tone of speech. It is only when researchers are at the same wavelength – of course still keeping the necessary independence – with the object of their study that the danger of simplification can be limited. “Learning to feel the organization’s pulse comes only through close attention, listening, experience and reflection. Trial-and-error and living with the organization over time can develop a deep knowledge and understanding of how the organization functions and what it takes to correct problems” (Bennet & Bennet, 2004, p. 299) (Geyer & van der Zouwen, 2001, p. 299).

Therefore, based upon the purpose of understanding the incident management process in the context of the organization in which it is embedded, part of the data collection was conducted along the principles of an ethnographic field study. To this end field observations were done in the two organizations over a two year period (each), overlapping one year, so a period of in total three years. They were gathered on the perspectives of several organizational levels, going from senior management to people on the floor. In addition, this study includes both real-time observations and retrospective data (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997, p. 3). For this observation, we got help from a team of master students⁴⁷. At the Bank, these ethnographic field study activities included amongst others our presence at meetings, incident briefings and debriefings and project discussions of progress, but also – and at least as important – informal observations made and impressions gathered during lunches and coffee breaks. The same kinds of activities were conducted at the NPP. In addition, however, two idiosyncratic activities are worth mentioning and have resulted from the mutual trust between our research team and the NPPs senior management and staff. A first activity in that respect is that we were an observer at a training session at the plant’s simulator training center. Second, a particular mention is our experience as an in person and in real-time witness of a severe incident at the plant’s premises.

This included our observation from the incident command procedure rollout, the decision making process and the incident debriefing. At all times, we kept daily records of these activities, providing real-time data (Brown & Eisenhardt, 1997, p. 5).

Previous research in HRO settings builds on ethnography as well. Gauthereau & Hollnagel (2005) for instance, in their effort of trying to understand a series of NPP incidents related to operational readiness verification, felt a clear need to understand work practice in its natural setting, i.e. the plant and thus the need for observations to be one of the sources of empirical materials (Gauthereau & Hollnagel, 2005, p. 121). Roberts and Rousseau (1989) called the need not only to focus on the activity of interest, but on the broader context “to have the bubble”.

Like Gauthereau & Hollnagel (2005, p. 121) we experienced nonetheless that it was not possible to separate the specificity of the process under research from its specific environment.

Therefore, we had to combine direct, reactive and non-obtrusive observations of selected staff with in-depth interviews.

5.3 Interviews