Document Review

Although interviews are the primary source of evidence for this research, archival records and documents kept by the relevant agencies and parties are equally necessary. Collection of archival and current documents as empirical field data is recognised as being significant (Yin, 2014). Data will be gathered on the PPP implementation adopted by the UKAS. These reviews of existing information are needed to enhance the reliability and triangulate the research interviews. This is complemented by a process of semi-structured interviews with individuals involved with the UKAS PPP procurement process.

4.8.1.1 Identification of Documents

In the context of this research, the archival records and documents to be analysed were identified from the literature review and interviews. The published archival records and documents were used to understand the established PPP practice and the competition policy adopted by UKAS. In line with the ambitious plan to access UKAS documents and files, the researcher applied for permission from the Economic Planning Unit to undertake the research into UKAS, and was granted permission.

The literature review led to the belief that the PPP implementation is based on the Malaysian public procurement regulations. Despite the permission granted by the Economic Planning Unit, UKAS has a very strict policy of documentation control which limits access to the agency files and internal material, hence limiting the ability of the researcher to access material to examine the procurement process for past concessions. The main document used and referred to by UKAS is its own PPP guidelines. Other sources reviewed includes the Privatisation Master Plan and UKAS website. Documents are available to the public via the UKAS website, and details are further discussed in Chapter 5.

105

4.8.2 Interviews

As one of the most common sources of evidence for case study, data will be collected through a series of interviews. In built environment research, interviews are considered to be the favoured method (Amaratunga et al., 2002) and are the most critical source of evidence in this research. According to Saunders et al. (2015), interviews can be conducted in three ways: structured, semi-structured or unstructured. Each type of interview has its own advantages and disadvantages. A structured interview limits the responses from the individual, leading to less rich data. At the other extreme, unstructured interview allow the respondents to express themselves freely without limitation, hence making the process of analysing the data more difficult since there are no consistencies (Myers, 2013). A semi-structured interview elicits valuable information of actual experiences, the respondent’s interpretation, and recommendations on the research matter. Since this study involves an in-depth study of the government’s procedures and policy, a semi-structured interview will allow the respondents to be more flexible in giving their feedback from different perspectives, with consistency coming from a similar set of questions. A few sets of pro-forma interview questions were prepared. Due to the uniqueness and different decisions made by human actors in the case study, follow-up questions were asked for further clarification and justification. This was to ensure that the objectives of the interview, to obtain facts and the meaning of events, are met.

4.8.2.1 Sampling of Respondents

Saunders et al. (2015) explained that sampling is necessary, given the limitation in obtaining information from the entire population. The selection of the sample depends on the research objectives. Factors such as accessibility to the resources, and financial and time limitations should not be ignored in deciding the sampling technique. There are two strategic sampling options: probability sampling/random sampling and non-probability/non-random sampling. Kumar (2011) drew the border between the use of sampling within a quantitative research and a qualitative research. In quantitative research, a sample represents the study population, while sampling in qualitative research is less significant, used to achieve a diverse yet comprehensive set of data (Sandelowski, 1995). Both approaches are valuable. Based on the nature of the research outlined in Chapter 1, the research requires quality in the sample rather than quantity. Thus purposive sampling was selected. This is a sub-set of non-probability sampling where a specific sample is selected in a non-random way to acquire rich and specialised information (Kumar, 2011; Saunders et al., 2015). Purposive sampling is

106

consistent with the research philosophy and the research strategy. If a probability/random sampling technique is deployed in identifying the interview respondents, it might not achieve the objectives of this research. The researcher had a clear idea of the research respondents, and those identified are presented in Table 4.16.

Table 4.16 - Respondent Sampling Sampling

type Criteria Respondent identifier Objective Respondents Numbers of

Purposive UKAS

Personnel Respondent 1 (R1) UKAS Tactical – implementation and the To understand the PPP competition policy adopted from the policy

making perspective. Further to confirm the actual practice with the published guidelines and

regulations 5 respondents UKAS Tactical – Respondent 2 (R2) UKAS Technical – Respondent 3 (R3) UKAS Operational – Respondent 4 (R4) UKAS Operational – Respondent 5 (R5) Purposive PPP Practitioner who experienced with UKAS procurement process Client – Respondent 6

(R6) benefits, experience and To learn about the perceptions of these first

line of UKAS PPP 5 respondents Consultants to Financier – Respondent 7 (R7) SPV - Respondent 8 (R8) SPV - Respondent 9 (R9) Project management company for SPV - Respondent 10 (R10)

Purposive PPP Expert Academic Expert –

Respondent 11 (R11) expert’s view on PPP To learn about the phenomena in Malaysia 3 respondents Academic Expert – Respondent 12 (R12) Industry Expert – Respondent 13 (R13)

Respondents were deliberately selected based on their knowledge, experience and involvement with the UKAS procurement process. Each identified respondent has his own role and experience with the UKAS procurement process, so the researcher opted for individual face–to-face interviews. The rationale of the criteria mentioned above is to have an in-depth exploration of the Malaysian context as prescribed by people with experience or

107

knowledge about the UKAS procurement process. The research segregates the sample into three groups with divergent backgrounds, according to their activity and contribution to the UKAS procurement process. Through this sampling selection and thorough identification of respondents, the researcher is able to maximise the amount of information expected on Malaysian PPP.

Table 4.17 – Minimum Non-Probability Sample Size

Nature of Study Minimum Sample Size

Semi-structure/in-depth Interviews 5-25

Ethnographic 35-36

Grounded Theory 20-35

Considering a homogenous population 4-12

Considering a heterogeneous population 12-30

Source: Saunders et al. (2015)

Deciding on the sample size in qualitative research is difficult. Too small a sample might affect the quality of the data collected (Sandelowski, 1995). However, Kumar (2011) stressed that sample size in qualitative research is not as crucial as in statistical research. Instead of achieving a specific sample size, an adequate sample size for qualitative research is one that is sufficient to satisfy the research objectives and to build arguments for the study (Suter, 2011). An adequate size is achieved when the data collected reaches saturation point, that is when no new information is received or new themes discovered (Kumar, 2011; Saunders et al., 2015). Although the saturation point is subjective and dependent on the judgement of the researcher, Table 4.17 demonstrate the minimum non-probability sample size as recommended by Saunders.

During the interviews, there was a suggestion by one respondent of a snowball sampling exercise, by recommending another individual to be interviewed; however, when contacted this individual was not interested in contributing to this research. In fact, the sample already included an individual with the same role and experience.

108

4.8.2.2 Interview Questions

The interview questions were designed to ensure richness gained through the sources of evidence mentioned in the above procedures. The classic questions of who, what, when, where and why were used as a basis from which to develop the interview questions.

The choice of interview as the source of primary data made the process of designing the questions critical (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2008). They were based on the literature review, with different sets of interview questions designed for each category in order to achieve the same goal but seen from different perspectives: policy maker, practitioner and expert. The advantage of using pre-determined questions is in providing a consistent basis for the data analysis phase. All interview questions can be seen in Appendix C, D and E. The interview questions were divided into two major themes: PPP and competition. In the PPP section, the questions were drafted to seek:

i. Understanding of the people involved in the PPP legal status of UKAS; ii. The actual procurement process practised;

iii. The objective of the PPP programme under UKAS.

For the second research theme, competition, questions were designed to ascertain the importance of competition in the procurement process. The questions in each set focused on:

i. The relevance of competition within the PPP procurement process;

ii. Respondents’ views on the current competition policy incorporated by UKAS in the procurement process;

iii. Considerations in deciding the type of procurement; iv. Unsolicited proposal implementation;

v. The implementation of the New Economy Policy within UKAS PPP.

Several follow-up questions were also asked during the interview sessions, to seek justification and clarification of unclear responses. As mentioned above, different sets of questions were put to each group, the UKAS personnel, PPP practitioners and PPP experts, as follows:

• The first set was designed for the UKAS personnel and aimed at gaining information about PPP, competition and its implementation. To gain this information, respondents were asked their views on the policy and implementation of PPP. Further questions were about the parameters used by

109

the unit to justify using this procurement process and the initiatives taken to uphold competition in PPP implementation.

• The second set was designed for the managers of selected companies involved in PPP by UKAS. The interview attempted to assess their involvement in PPP and to gain their views and perceptions of the current UKAS policy.

• The third set was designed for the identified experts in PPP from academic institutions or from industry. These interviews were intended to gain an understanding on the PPP phenomenon in Malaysia, especially through UKAS, and their views and opinions on the applicability of competition in the PPP procurement process.

4.8.4 Pilot Study

A pilot study is commonly conducted in social sciences research for two reasons: as a small- scale trial run in preparation for a larger study; and pre-testing the feasibility of a research instrument or methods and procedures (van Teijlingen & Hundley, 1998). Since this research adopted the single unit case study, the pilot study is vital to anticipate any potential concerns, allowing any improvement or enhancement to be made. Prior to the actual interviews with the respondents, a pilot study was therefore undertaken to test the precision of the research instrument in addressing the research question and hence to increase its validity and reliability. The pilot study was also intended to estimate the time required for actual interviews.

One respondent who matched the criteria as outlined was interviewed in November 2014. This respondent worked for UKAS and also had the privilege to be seconded to one of the concessionaires. The interview lasted approximately 30 minutes. Based on the feedback from the respondent, the research instrument was considered clear in terms of language and easy to comprehend the content. The respondent advised on the researcher’s interview technique in extracting information from future respondents, since there are questions regarding their experience and personal opinions of government policy. The data collected from this respondent will not form part of the case study as the pilot was only a feasibility study. Since the interview was conducted in several languages, it was translated and transcribed. The same procedure was carried out for the actual interviews.

110