What does the term 'Measure' refer to?

Oxford dictionary (2016) defines the measure as, a plan or course of action taken to achieve a particular purpose. Merriam-Webster (2015) defines the measure as, to judge importance, value, or extent of something. In this research 'measure' was used to highlight importance and value of the data validity and reliability which cannot be undermined to achieve the objectives of this research. Moreover to ensure that data validity and reliability were achieved for this particular research.

141 4.6.14 Sampling Strategy

A sample is part of a population of interest to the researcher that by definition reflects the population characteristics under investigation. According to Saunders et al. (2009), He suggested that even if the researcher is conducting a case study strategy within a large organisation and collecting data using interviews, he/she will still need to select a case study (sample) organisation and a group (sample) of employees and managers to interview.

Keeping in view the in-depth study of the phenomenon under investigation, to achieve set objectives and to answer the research questions, two case study organisations were selected. Furthermore, purposive (judgemental) sampling was used as the most appropriate sampling method regarding the selection of the participants. As advocated by Saunders et al. (2009) that purposive sampling is often used for case study research because it enables to use judgement to select cases that will best answer the research questions and to meet set objectives. Bryman (2007) suggested that this strategy allows the researcher to sample purposefully and to ensure a wide range of interviewee characteristics.

As the focus of this research was on investigating factors at a senior management level, organisational staff mainly at senior management was selected. Some respondents from middle management were also chosen in order to ensure validity of information and corroboration of data. Being senior staff, other considerations were taken care of e.g. their availability, time constraints, substantial workload, outstation travel, and annual leave.

Finally, respondents at different hierarchical levels (the Top Management, the Middle Management and the Business Excellence Team) of the two case study organisations were considered for the purpose of this study. Total population size was 15 for each case study as all the selected respondents were involved in the organisations’ Dubai Quality Award

142

implementation activities. It was decided to take all 15 as purposeful sample and thus targeted. A total of 26 interviewees agreed i.e. 13 respondents from each case study for the interviews. Table 4.12 reflects the distribution of the respondents involved at various organisational levels. SN Possible Respondents Purposeful Sample Size Actual Number of Interviewees

Case A Case B Case A Case B

1 Top Management 8 8 8 8 2 Middle Management 5 5 3 3 3 Business Excellence Team 2 2 2 2

Total Population size for Sampling

15 15 13 13

Total number of actual interviews conducted are 26, i.e. 13 in each of the case study. Table 4.12: The distribution of prospective Respondents (produced for this thesis)

Respondents included in the sample must be as unbiased as possible (Sekaran, 2006). Equal attention was paid for all the two cases that the selected individuals understood and agreed with the purpose of the research and would respond as honestly and objectively as possible. As the study focused on investigating factors affecting implementation of excellence model at a senior management level, therefore there was conscious effort to interview all interviewees of senior management level considering them as a purposeful sample size in order to obtain maximum data at this level and to improve internal triangulation.

143 4.6.15 The Positions of Interviewees

Based on the information gathered about the case study organisations and discussion made with the members of the quality and business excellence team in each case study, the author found that only the people that were actively involved with the Dubai Quality Award implementation process had sufficient knowledge about it and were able to share their experience, impressions and observations in-depth. Therefore for this research, the author decided to select only those people who were directly involved in the Dubai Quality Award implementation process in their respective organisation as they were regarded as key informants. In this context, Yin (2009, p. 107) suggested that “key informants are often critical to the success of case study. Such persons provide the case study investigator with insights into a matter but also can suggest sources of corroboratory or contrary sources of evidence”.

The interviewees selected are the Top Management, the Middle Management and the Business Excellence Team (comprised of the Management Representative and the Quality Award Assessor). Different levels, categories and roles were purposely selected for this research study, so they could give multiple views regarding the subject investigated. Table 4.13 shows the interviewee groups referred in this research and their positions in the case study organisations.

Position of the Interviewees Referred in the Findings Case Study A Chief Executive

Officer

CE

Top Management Head of Division HD

Case Study B General Manager GM

Head of Division HD

The Department Manager DM Middle Management

The Management Representative The Quality Award Assessor

MR Business Excellence Team

AS

Table 4.13: Interviewee groups from the two case study organisations (produced for this thesis)

144

The Top Management referred to those with the main responsibility for managing the overall organisation. In this research, the Top Management for Case Study ‘A’ referred to the Chief Executive Officer and Head of Divisions. While for case Study ‘B’, the Top Management referred to the General Manager and Head of Divisions. Selecting Head of Divisions was on the basis of their role not only overseeing the organisational activities and performance but also acted as sponsors of Dubai Quality Award excellence model application in their respective divisions.

Furthermore, The Middle Management was referred to the Department Manager. The researcher decided to include this level because on one side they reported to the Head of Divisions and on the other side they were directly responsible for managing their departments, relevant staff, day-to-day operational tasks and implementation of DQA requirements in their respective departments.

The Business Excellence team regarded at middle to senior management level, however was selected because of their essential role in full project of Dubai Quality Award implementation in their respective organisation. They were referred as the Management Representative and the Quality Award Assessor. In regards to the number of interviewees, the author made conscious efforts through business excellence team to keep same number of interviewees in both the case studies in order to establish balanced information and data to investigate factors affecting implementation of excellence model at a senior management level.

145 4.6.16 Pilot Study

A pilot study provided an investigation of whether the questions asked were sufficient to generate the required information, furthermore, it enhanced the validity of such questions in both interviews and questionnaire, as the researcher had a chance to reword and reconstruct the questions. Hence, the researcher believed that a pilot study was very important to make sure that the questions of interviews made sense to the respondents, and to guess the suitable time for each interview.

Furthermore, the researcher believed that, a pilot study will be helpful to get more accurate questions related to the research problem, which could be then used when conducting the real case studies. This was advocated by the Saunders et al. (2007, p. 606) that pilot study is a,” A small-scale study to test a questionnaire, interview checklist or observation schedule, to minimise the likelihood of respondents having problems in answering the questions and of data recording problems as well as to allow some assessment of the question’s validity and the reliability of the data that will be collected.” Yin (2011) conveyed that the purpose of a pilot study is to help the researcher to refine data collection plans with respect to both the content of the data and procedures to be followed. Collis and Hussey (2003) recommended, trying the pilot study on people who are similar to those in the real case study. Yin (2011) highlighted that the selection of the pilot case study criteria can be convenience, access and geographical proximity.

In relation to the above discussions, the author conducted a pilot study with the purpose of getting a proper and clearer meaning of the interview topics and related questions. Therefore two pilot interviews were carried out with one member of the business excellence team from each case study i.e. one from case study ‘A’ and one from ‘B’. The selection of these members for pilot study was on the basis of their knowledge in the subject, direct involvement in the complete project of Dubai Quality DQA implementation and being an

146

assessor of the DQA. As there was no research carried out on this subject in Dubai context, therefore, the interview instrument was largely developed based on the literature review outcome, Dubai Quality Award assessments and research delivered on TQM Implementation.

The pilot study helped the author to check whether the interview topics and related questions were comprehensive enough and understandable by the interviewees. The researcher also made conscious effort to ensure that there were no repetitions of questions asked, and to estimate the duration of the real case study to be conducted. The interviews’ duration in the pilot study took in between two and half hours to 3 hours. It was important to measure the time needed for the interviews, for the purpose of scheduling the data collection process and setting the appointments with the interviewees. Based on the pilot study, some of the following conclusions were taken into account:

1. All interview topics and most of the related questions were clear. However, respondents of the pilot study exercise felt that senior management of their respective organisation will not be able to fully understand the questions using typical quality excellence framework terminology such as RADAR methodology, deployment of approaches and assessment and refinement. Therefore, four questions were identified which needed revision / rewording. Questions required revision included:

i- Were the benefits of RADAR methodology communicated to all employees? (Q: 3. 2) ii- Did the RADAR methodology integrate into all operational processes? (Q: 3. 10) iii- How deployment of approaches was ensured? (Q: 3. 18)

iv- How management ensured assessment and refinement of approaches and their deployment? (Q: 4. 2)

147

i- Were the purposes and benefits of DQA understood by the management and employees in your organisation?

ii- Did the DQA excellence model integrate into daily management practices and operations?

iii- During DQA implementation, the responsibilities were clearly assigned individually or teams were involved with the same responsibility?

iv- What was the role of management in monitoring and control of DQA implementation?

3. The interviewees preferred to receive list of the interview topics and related questions in advance, in order to prepare themselves and to provide more reliable information.

4. All interviewees preferred to remain anonymous and no discussion was tape recorded.

5. All interviewees preferred to have the interview alone avoiding presence of any other person from the same case study organisation.

The initial result from the pilot study helped the researcher to test the validity of the interview questions as advocated by the Easterby-Smith et al. (2004) that test for validity and reliability should be made at the pilot stage of an investigation, before the main phase of the data collection. Furthermore, Pilot study also provided the opportunity to practice and to conduct the real interviews with more confidence and in timely manner. (See Appendix-4: Pilot Interview Transcript).

148 4.6.17 Conducting the Real Case Study

Easterby-Smith et al. (2008) recommended using a letter to develop rapport to the organisation. He claimed that letters could fulfil three purposes; credibility, assists cooperation in the future, and provides the opportunity to send further details about the research. To make communication faster, the researcher sent an email to relevant contacts within case study organisations i.e. business excellence departments. In this case, the researcher explained the purpose of the academic research and asked their permission to conduct the research study. The email was attached with summary of research and sample topics. Then on desire of the case study organisations, researcher had a meeting with them to clarify the research topic, interview methodology, informed consent and duration. The researcher also involved DQA Secretariat, a government department having mandate of managing DQA process and being its relation with the case study organisations. This was supported by the author’s supervisor. Furthermore, where required, the researcher signed a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) with the case study organisation.

After agreement with both the case study organisations, the interviewing process was conducted from December 2012 through September 2013. All interviews were conducted in the premises of the case study organisations. The total numbers of interviewees in two case study organisations were 26, i.e. 13 from each organisation. The researcher believed that the chosen sample for interviews was sufficient to represent the data required for this study. The interviewees included staff mostly from the top management and few from the middle management keeping in view the research aim and objectives. Covering these two levels with Business Excellence team enhanced the validity by getting responses from different viewpoints of the interviewees. Semi-structured open-ended questions were asked to the interviewees, to allow flexibility and provided the possibility of the in-depth study, which helped the author to gain information needed. (See Appendix-5: Main Interview Transcript).

149

At the beginning of each interview session, the author explained the purpose of the study, permission granted for the study and signing of informed consent. He requested the cooperation of the respondents to give their sincere answers to the questions, stressing that there was no right or wrong answer, and all answers will be treated with full confidentiality. The interviewees were also told clearly that they have the right to withdraw any time from the interview session. This was crucial for developing trust between the researcher and the targeted interviewees. In this context, Easterby-Smith et al. (1991, p.77) expressed that “trust is an important and difficult issue in interviews, especially in one-off interviews where the people involved have not met before”. Although it was difficult to evaluate the honesty and accuracy of the responses of interviewees, the overall impression gained was that the respondents were generally intelligent, friendly, open, and gave their time and cooperation generously, and most seemed interested in the research. Infact reception and assistance given by some managers were beyond expectation. Some of key managers in both organisations spent more hours with the researcher explaining the main aspects of their operation.

In order to ensure consistency of interviewees understanding of the questions asked, the author explained and elaborated any terms that the respondents asked and were unsure about. As the interview contained some technical terms such as DQA excellence model, project plan, strategic perspective of quality and others; it was important to be assured that the interviewees had a correct understanding before they could offer the right answers. Wherever needed, questions were repeated and rephrased for interviewees understanding in order to obtain realistic information. Most of the interviews took time between two and half hours to three hours.

Permission was not granted to the researcher to record the interview sessions. No interviews were tape recorded. This was due to the aspects of cultural or competitive consideration. Notes were taken during each interview, in order to collect the relevant information. Notes from the interviews were later typed and converted into form of written record, immediately after each interview session. Miles and Huberman (1994) have suggested this method. All

150

the typed transcriptions were sent back to the interviewees to verify its content and accuracy. The interviewees were given two weeks’ time to give their feedback mentioning that in case of no response in two weeks, the author will assume their agreement with the transcription. The majority of the interviewees offered their feedback confirming the discussion points; however there were few suggestions based on which, the author made minor amendments to the transcripts. In this research, few of the interviewees did not give their feedback within two weeks, and so the author made an assumption that they agreed with the content of transcription. These cross checks were done to enhance the credibility of the qualitative study.

During the interviews, the author had a chance to view relevant materials needed for the study, such as documents and archival records. These documents and records mainly included, DQA submission document, management system manuals and procedures, results data presented to Dubai Quality Award office, minutes of meetings and reports. However, the researcher was not allowed to collect these documents or take out from the case study organisation premises due to containing confidential and sensitive organisation’s information, processes and data. In this case, the author took notes of them. The review of these documents assisted the author in analysing and interpreting the data collected from the interviews. During the interviews, the researcher also had an opportunity to observe working environment, meetings style and day to day activities performed by the case study organisations. (See Appendix-6: Completed Interview Transcript Sample).

151 4.7 Data Analysis

Figure 4.4 reflects data analysis schematic steps performed for this research:

Figure-4.4: Data Analysis Schematic Steps Performed for this Research (Produced for this thesis)

Writing of research interview findings

Tabulate common and unique factors for each CSO among literature review and field work

Responses linkage (Interview questions) with the research questions and with factors identified through literature

Data reduction and transcribing of responses

Reviewed each interview transcript to represent core of individual statement and coded them in final categories

Converted interview responses on the excel sheets according to preliminary categories as Initial data display for each case study organisation

Unique code assigned to each respondent

Unique Code assigned to case study organisations as CSO/A and CSO/B

Summary comparison for similar and unique factors identified through literature review and both the case study organisations

Colour coding of each factor identified through literature review to develop interview questions

152

Data collected from the in-depth semi-structured interviews was complimented through other data collection methods. Saunders et al. (2009) conveyed that nature of the qualitative data has implications for its analysis; therefore this complex nature of the data will probably need to be grouped into categories. He further mentioned that analysis of qualitative data involves demanding process and could not be seen as an easy option. Easterby-Smith et al. (2008) found that one of the main problems of qualitative data is how to condense highly