Dealing with history

A central feature of the research is that it examines changes that occurred over a relatively long period of time. Moreover, although documentary material was widely used in the study, information about many aspects of those change paths was not documented in any form, and heavy reliance therefore had to be placed on the interviews and the „oral history‟ they could provide. Considerable efforts were therefore made to design an approach to the survey interviews that would achieve as much reliability as possible in both the content of information and its dating.

One aspect of this approach was to organise the interviews, after an initial presentation about the purposes of the research, around two distinct steps.

Step I: The Identification of Key Events and Stages

During this step the stages in the firm‟s history of capability development were identified by focusing on “key events” that marked important changes in what the firm was able to do.

Step II: Characterisation of Learning and Innovation Efforts

Then the characterisation of learning and innovation efforts, including interactions and economic performance data was collected with specific reference to those events and stages in the firm‟s history.

In undertaking these two steps, considerable care was taken to achieve two aims: (a) to secure the greatest possible reliability in the recollected information, and (b) to link that information as accurately as possible to specific times within the history of both the individual firms and the overall development of the KIMS sector. These two aspects of the approach are explained in more detail below.

(a) Acquiring reliable information:

The data gathering method did not request information under the headings in Tables 4.4 and 4.5 merely with reference to vaguely defined past time periods. Instead, it included a technique to focus the questions around very concrete events in the history of each firm. Pilot interviews had strongly suggested that interviewees were clearer in recalling key features of their firms‟ learning history when questions were focused on specific important changes, rather than if they were asked about such features in predefined years or periods which might be fairly meaningless in terms of changes of the firms‟ technological capability level. Senior managers and engineers could recall such specific events, in which they had often been personally involved, much more readily and clearly than they could recall what occurred in year „x‟ or in the period „199? – 199?‟. Thus the “backbone” of the data collection about each KIMS supplier‟s learning process was built around these “key events” over the lifespan of the firm.

As indicated above, these key events were identified at Step I in the interview by means of a specific discussion with the interviewee. However, given the importance of the identification of these key events, they were validated by

asking more than one executive who had been working in, or connected to, the KIMS supplier over a long period and knew its history well. Such individuals were sometimes no longer employed in the firms.

The process of identifying these events was also supported by a set of standardised questions and illustrative examples of the relevant kinds of important change in the firm‟s capability level – as summarised in Table 4.6. In addition to reinforcing the quality of recollected data, this „event-centred‟ approach enabled the identification of phases of differing intensity in the general path of capability development in each firm – both differences between phases in the life of individual firms and differences between firms. For instance, a dynamic firm that had pursued a particularly active learning process would demonstrate a relatively high frequency of “key events”, while a firm with a passive learning path involving the accumulation of capabilities for only slight adaptations would show very few.

(b) Accurate dating of information Aligning Firm Data into Common Industry Phases:

The identification of key events not only assisted in the recall of information about associated learning activities and industry-level conditions. It also enabled the changes in capability level to be dated quite accurately within the history of the firm‟s own development.

But, as well as being important to understand the history of events within the steps and stages of an individual firm‟s own development path, it was also important to connect that internal firm-specific path externally to the history of the KIMS sector as a whole. Therefore, once each firm‟s data had been collected, and before the main analysis was undertaken, the data were reorganised in terms of the following time periods in the overall the emergence and development of the international KIMS sector:

Stage 1 – Gestation (From around the 1940s to the early 1970s)

Stage 2 – Emergence and Development (From around the mid-1970s to the early 1980s)

Stage 3 – Internationalisation (From around the late 1980s to around the late 1990s)

Stage 4 – Consolidation (From the early 2000s and ongoing).

Table 4.6: Criteria to Select Key Events on KIMS Firm‟s History

Main Criterion

Key events should be related to significant steps forward in term of firm’s technological and organisational capability. Key events are those projects or activities that represented a significant challenges and efforts that lead to a change in terms of what was the firm was able to do.

Related Questions:

 Which projects or activities represented or are associated to an important step forward in terms of what the firm was able to do?

 Which projects or activities have represented an important challenge that led to important changes in firm‟s technological or organisational capabilities

level?

 Do these events clearly mark a “before and after” in term of what the firm was able to do?

Examples of key events and sources of challenges:

a) Technology updating: Project or activity that required the use of a technology never used before by the firms (e.g. the first time in using modelling and simulation software to valuate an ore deposit for mine designing).

b) Performing task of higher complexity: Project or activity that represented a new level of complexity never faced before by the firm (e.g. first time that an engineering firm is responsible for the development of a whole investment project, including design, construction, procurements and starting up). c) Technology capability level augmenting: Project or activity that comprises changes in the level of firm‟s technological capability (e.g. the first time a

drilling service provider who had been a user of technology so far, modified the equipment instead of just using it).

d) Higher organisational capabilities requirements: Project or activity that comprised coordinating multiples actors, various organisational tiers, and new contracts schemes (e.g. a contract that requires a joint venture with other firms and subcontracting several function).

e) A challenge that requires research, development and engineering: First time the firm launches research, development or engineering programmes to deal with new challenges (e.g. a project related to a mine that has a complex geology never seen before that requires important research and engineering efforts).

f) New standards introduced by mining companies: A project or contracts that meant higher production quality and security standards required by a mining company (e.g. new requirements defined by standards of an international mining company).

g) New markets standards and regulations: A project facing more demanding standards derived from regulation or market standards (e.g. higher environmental and labour standards or first export experience to a country with tighter regulations).