Construction of Case Study Research Questions and Formative Ideas

! *'*!

5.2. Gather Rich Data (Step 1)

The content area of KYF2 was selected as a critical, revelatory case because it offered intimate access to strategic management phenomena not generally available to researchers and demonstrates unique levels of success among institutional strategies. This sampling stage was followed by the subject sampling of members of the KYF2 Management Team, who possess particular acumen in the use of improvisational skills in practice, and the artifacts of the project, which mirror these qualities. Finally, theoretical sampling was performed to develop conceptual and theoretical categories matching the data, from which to analyze and understand the experiences of participants. The sampling strategy helped me to

progressively sort, construct ideas, and examine these ideas more carefully through coding in the empirical inquiry.

5.2.1 Construction of Case Study Research Questions and Formative Ideas

The original data sources used to formulate the research domain boundaries of the topic of strategic management improvisation using minimal structure are gathered from two perspectives: 1) theoretical-oriented conceptual data derived from reading the organization strategy, improvisation, and behavioral geography literature; and 2) experiential data discovered in practice-oriented business problem-solving. The original pre-case study key research questions, and development of formative hunches or ideas, emerged as the conceptual literature sensitized me to concepts, gaps, and inconsistencies in the theory, and in reflection upon experiential practice insights, puzzles, and dilemmas. In turn, these same sources helped shape the design and content of my semi-structured

interview questions.

!!

! *'"!

My review of early and recent organizational improvisation literature revealed five core thematic groupings for minimal structure formative ideas. The groupings are trust, pace, conflicts, ambiguity, and spatial.

These provide distinctly separate tracks to create preliminary observations, and from which I developed the semi-structured interview protocol

questions. Whereas other interesting themes were present, such as power, values and aesthetics, I elected to initially delve into data collection with the strongest apparent groupings evident in the literature, and evidentially focus on the spatial minimal structure phenomena, though my experience and readings corroborate the potential validity of these other salient themes. A refined set of formative ideas definitions emerging from the literature reviews includes:

Trust – researchers define trust in minimal structures as the demonstration of mutual respect over agreement, where tacit rules are rarely articulated and consensus building is minimized. Extensive interaction enables

processes to proceed without controls, or reliance on a single plan for future action. The implicit use of credos, stories, myths, visions, slogans, mission statements, and trademarks also allows actors to coordinate and mutually adjust to circumstances from basis of common symbols.

Acceptance among players fosters space for creative imagination, and inspires innovation as individuals are encouraged to take multiple at bats.

Trust is composed of a small set of big rules.

Pace – researchers do not generally describe minimal structures in respect to pace as specific units of measure, but allude to attention to ongoing temporal coordination, and linking products together over time through rhythmic transition processes from present projects to future ones, which creates a relentless pace of change. This theme is relative weak in the literature, but the close association of time and process warrants further investigation.

!!

! *'#!

Conflict – researchers reflect on the use of minimal structures as positive means of defusing, or allowing the tension to sustain changes, through conflict. Conflict is perceived in terms of allowing diversity to thrive

rather than suppress it; certainly diversity over homogeneity. This suggests a high degree of paradox among actors who enact minimal structures so as correspondence between intentions and interpretations is not necessary, and this characteristic preserves inter-determinacy. A key contribution of minimal structures is they reflexively reinforce our notice of how others are listening and responding.

Ambiguity – researchers identify the absence of explicit rules with the freedom to improvise current products. The preferably loose versus tight coupling of minimal structures seems to promote ambiguity of meaning over clarity, yet within the scope of general assumptions and incomplete expectations. The limited prescription guides rather than constrains action, offering a high degree of flexibility in practice.

Space – researchers define the characteristics of minimal structures as spatial mental constructs rather than concrete forms that create a

continuous sense of cohesion and coordination. These elementary, partially ordered structures of place support but do not specify, and present a great deal of room to depart and deviate. In the music metaphor, structures are nonnegotiable, impersonal limitations providing just enough structure for collective confidence to play together; playing what is not explicated by one structure permits the creation of another, not related to the first, but rather displaying both continuity and discontinuity with the original.

Players know where everyone is at any given moment, and a simple

backdrop of rules and roles enables players to innovate and collaborate on ideas with the assurance that they are oriented to a common place. There is the sense of requisite arriving, which is emergent, not embodied. Actors elaborate basic structures in complex ways and coordinate action rather

!!

! *'$!

than seek alignment of cognitions with minimal disclosure, minimal site, and simple structures. Practitioners purposefully omit contextual cues to allow for multiple interpretations by others, or encourage instances of changing the context so as to save the situation. Minimal structures allow us to adaptively accomplish tasks even as the context is changing because spatial constructs are instantiated in recurrent social practice; there is no need to stop to create agreements long way. Not planning structures engenders the creation of improvisational space and produces the

framebreaking attitude. This spatial theme seems to be the most obvious and least explored attribute of minimal structures.