Confirmatory Case Study Data Collection

To assess the relevance of the findings outside the six exploratory case companies and extend the research’s external validity, interviews were conducted with additional engineering-oriented SMEs. Firms were identified from the same geographical and sector categories the exploratory cases were drawn from (Nottingham, Telford (IJ1) and Northampton (BC)) using the same company database6. With the diverse range of firms included within the exploratory stage of the research, the external validity of the emergent themes and preliminary conceptual model was potentially improved, reducing the need to identify theoretical replications (Yin 2009). Firms similar to the exploratory cases represented literal replications, assisting validation, confirmation and refinement of the findings from the exploratory phase.

Consistent with the additional interviews conducted with the exploratory case companies, the confirmatory interviews enabled data collection specifically related to

Review Literature Instrument Development Data Gathering Analyze Data Share with Case Companies

86

confirming the findings of the exploratory phase. Additional data was also collected from related sources that included involvement with authorities on process improvement (Antony 2012) and sharing elements of the research findings with a range of academics in the form of prestigious academic conferences (see Marzec and Matthews 2012; Matthews

et al. 2012; Matthews et al. 2013a; and Matthews et al. 2013b). This provided

information on the relevance of the findings to practice, as well as assisting in the identification of additional relevant literature.

Companies were selected that had a company website on which ISO 9001:2008 accreditation could be identified and that had more than 20 employees (due to this information being present on the source database). The nature of the observations from EM2 inferred a qualitatively different context within micro organisations, due to the greater direct impact of management on operational processes. Involvement of slightly larger firms was considered important for assessing the findings within more complex management environments.

A letter (Appendix 3.6) outlining the research content, progress to date and requesting involvement of the firm was sent to firms that met the selection criteria. An email copy of the letter that was then followed up by a telephone call later accompanied the initial letter. Contact was aimed towards the Managing Director of the company, as the individual most likely to be able to initiate involvement with external parties. Letters and emails were sent to 36 companies. 28 of these companies were contacted by telephone, of these, messages were not returned by nine companies, seven companies were not interested or did not consider the research was relevant to them, three firms were too busy to be involved and one firm was involved with the Manufacturing Advisory Service. The remaining eight firms agreed to be involved in the research representing a satisfactory response rate of over 20%. Again, reflecting the difficult operating environment and resource constraints of SMEs, each firm involved wanted to know what they could expect to receive from involvement in the research before agreeing to participate. Following initial interviews, follow-up interviews were arranged with other members within those companies that were able to spare resources. The details of the

87

confirmatory case companies and data collected with additional sources of data are presented in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6: Confirmatory Data Collection

Data Collected

Number of Contacts

Length Participants Relevance Contribution

Academic Feedback 4 Email communications and conference presentations Various academics within the field of operations management

Assess the relevance of the theory and topic of research Introduced alternate perspectives from which to critique findings Practitioner

Training Various 1 Week

Process improvement experts and process improvement

practitioners

Assess the relevance of findings to an accepted improvement

methodology (Six Sigma)

Confirmed the relevance of research to practice Confirmatory Case Studies Number of Staff Number of

interviews Length Participants

Additional Data Collection

Window Mechanism

Assembler 43 1 1h 30m Conformance Manager Website, site tour Folder Manufacturer 20 1 1h Managing Director Website, site tour

Injection Moulding 3 20 3 3h

Technical Director, Commercial

Director and Production Manager Website, site tour

Systems Integrator 2 40 3 4h

Sales and Marketing Director and

Technical Support Engineer Website, site tour Engineering

Manufacturer 3 64 3 3h 30m

Quality Manager, Production Manager

and Managing Director Website, Site tour Engineering

Manufacturer 4 65 1 1h 30m Quality Assurance Manager Website, site tour Engineering

Manufacturer 5 ~100 1 2h Managing Director Website Engineering

Manufacturer 6 28 1 1h 30m Managing Director Website

Total 14 18h

Table 3.7 presents how interview questions included within Appendix 3.5 initiated discussions on emergent themes and how they relate to addressing research question 3.

88

Table 3.7: Chain of Evidence Interview

Protocol Topic

Example interview

question related to topic Theme Covered

Contribution to addressing research question 3

Process improvement

When non-conforming parts are received from a customer, what is the process for implementing improvements?

Management support, Culture, Process Improvement and Benefits realised from process improvement

Provides rich contextual information about the procedures in place to undertake process improvements. These covered topics of management support, culture and benefits realised from process improvement.

While discussions on process improvement tended to cover the emergent themes, to elicit further information on the specific themes, additional questions were posed to explore the role of the emergent themes within process improvement activities.

Management support

What involvement does management have in process improvement?

Management support, Culture, Process Improvement

Provides evidence related to how management enabled, supported and promoted process improvement by providing resources necessary for changes in behaviour and cognition.

Culture

How do members of staff

perceive process improvement activities?

Culture, Process Improvement, Benefits realised from process improvement

Provides evidence related to how individuals perceived process improvement activities. How closely involved are

you with customers and suppliers?

Culture, Benefits realised from process improvement

Provides evidence related to whether individuals within the firm directly add value to customers and increase their satisfaction

Benefit realised from process improvement How do process improvement activities affect the customer?

Management support, Process Improvement, Benefits realised from process improvement

Provides evidence related to whether process improvement activities benefited customers and the firm as a whole

The interview protocol was developed using valid and reliable measurement constructs employed within high quality operations and general management research (Appendix 3.5). These constructs are considered to be able to measure the social phenomenon of interest (valid) and provide consistent results (reliable). The identification of these themes and measurement constructs was informed by the exploratory case findings. Measurement constructs on culture (Terziovski 2010) were contributed to by work on organisational culture by Schein (1990) that was combined with Radnor’s (2001) interpretation of culture in terms of it being the result of shared definitions within an organisation. Management support was drawn from Samson and Terziovski’s (1999) construct for leadership, which was complimented by Schein (1990). Consistent with the potential benefits firms could realise from process improvement identified within the

89

exploratory case companies and presented in section 2.3, benefits realised from process improvement were also informed by Beltran-Martin et al.’s (2008) construct of organisational performance. This construct gave particular focus to customer satisfaction compared to relative performance or profitability that smaller firms may be unaware of or unwilling to share. The exploratory phase of the research provided a foundation for the content of process improvement, due to limitations in existing conceptualisations of process improvement (Powell 1995; Wolff and Pett 2006).