Interview process

Before the interview process started, a list of questions was prepared to ask the respondents (Appendix B). The semi-structured interview questions were checked by the researcher’s supervisor, five colleagues at the researcher’s institution (University of Salford, UK) and practitioners in the Malaysian construction industry. The result of these discussions proved to be useful and led to the refinement of the interview questions for the pilot study and main study phase. Pilot interviews were conducted before the study began in order to test the interview questions and to hone the interviewing skills as recommended by Creswell (2009). The respondents were contacted to ask their permission to be interviewed over the telephone. Before the interview, the aims and purposes of the research were communicated using various media to ensure the respondents were at ease and clear about the aim of the

interview. E-mails were sent to the organisations/link persons who expressed a willingness to approach potential respondents.

Interview sessions via telephone were arranged in advance taking into consideration the suitability of time and place. This was to ensure that the respondents were ready, calm and without distraction from the surroundings. Arrangements were made by an earlier conversation with the persons involved and through personal and official contacts. Respondents’ names were kept confidential and the actual names were replaced immediately during the interview with a code or with other pseudo names as agreed by the participants themselves (Table 4.9).

Each interview lasted for about one hour and was undertaken in the respondents’ office rooms in the morning (between 9.00am to 11.00am Malaysian time and 2.00am to 3.00am UK time) and in the evening after office hours (between 4.00pm to 6.30pm Malaysia time and 8.00am to 10.30am UK time). The interviews were scheduled for the convenience of the interviewees. Most of the respondents preferred to be interviewed either in the early morning or in the late afternoon. This was to make sure they were focussed on the issues discussed and to minimise disruptions in their working schedules.

Most of the interview sessions were conducted via free-calling on Skype, and there were also a few calls to landlines and mobile phones which incurred a small fee. Interview sessions were recorded using a free Skype recorder called ‘call graph’ and manually backed-up by placing a digital Dictaphone near the built-in speakerphone on the laptop. The quality of the voice connection was not an issue, particularly with Skype and VoIPCheap.

4.5.4.4. Recording

Permission was obtained from the respondents to record each interview session. The semi- structured interviews were digitally recorded for accuracy so that any extra information that was not noted down at the time of the interview could be later transcribed for further analysis. Gray (2004: p. 227) affirmed that the use of tape recording is vital in conducting interviews as it helps the researcher record essential data, while permitting them to concentrate on the process of listening, interpreting and re-focusing the interview. During the telephone interview, it was important to get the respondent to talk freely in order to obtain information and cover all of the areas during the interview. Questions were prepared beforehand, but as the interviews progressed and more issues arose, additional relevant

questions were inserted naturally into the flow of the interview. The interview file from call graph and digital Dictaphone were transferred onto a laptop immediately after the interview and then named with a numeric code (Table 4.9).

After carrying out the interviews, the recording was carefully listened to and transcribed verbatim. A second careful listening accompanied by the typed transcription was performed to ensure full agreement between the recorded and the transcribed data. This was undertaken to ensure the reliability of both the data and interpretations. In order to become familiar with the data, the interviews were manual transcribed rather than relying on software. The number and categories of interviews conducted is given in Table 4.9.

Table 4.9 : Number and categories of interviewees involved

Managerial

level Job category

No. of interviews

conducted *Codes for interviewees

Top General Manager 5 TL1, TL2, TS1, TS2, TS3

Vice President 1 TM1

Middle Project Manager 6 ML1, ML3, ML4, MM2, MM5, MS4

Planning Engineer 2 ML5, MM3

HR Manager 4 ML4, ML6, MM4, MM2

Quantity Surveyor 4 MM1, MS2, MS4, MS5

Junior Site supervisor 6 JL1, JL7, JM1, JS3,JS6, JS7

*Code for interviewees

T/L/M/S/1/2/3 etc = Top/ Large/Medium/Small/ company 1/2/3 etc M/T/M/S/1/2/3 etc = Middle /Large/Medium/Small/ company 1/2/3 etc J/T/M/S/1/2/3 etc = Junior /Large/Medium/Small/ company 1/2/3 etc

4.5.5. Questionnaire survey

The questionaire were distributed to 1000 respondents. The respondents were selected randomly. In selecting the contractors for the survey, only Malaysian contractors were considered, contractors were selected from CIDB directory. The directory contains a list of SMEs and large contractors. The list is equipped with the address, telephone and fax numbers of the contractors. Some of the companies listed cannot be contacted by phone or by fax. Companies with no phone or fax numbers and no e-mail address are deemed ‘uncontactable’ for the purpose of the survey. A postal questionnaire technique was used in this study due to the geographical spread of contractors across Malaysia. This allowed a greater number of subjects to be contacted in a limited time period in comparison with other techniques, such as interviews. Additionally it ensured anonymity of the respondents

in order to encourage frankness when answering the questions (Robson, 2002). However the weaknesses of the method cannot be ignored. The biggest disadvantage with postal questionnaires is non-response or a low response, which reduces the effective sample size and can introduce bias (Robson, 2006). Several strategies were used for maximising the response rate to the questionnaire Table 4.11.

4.5.5.1. Questionnaire development

Due to the lack of empirical research in knowledge sharing within Malaysian construction organisations (Subsection 2.4.4 in Chapter 2), developing a reliable questionnaire for this research was very important. Initially the design of the questionnaire was developed based on the review of the existing literature, as well as by referencing knowledge sharing information and questionnaires from organisations in construction and other sectors.

The first step in designing the questionnaire was to base it upon prior research studies in knowledge management activities (Wong, 2009; Bishop et al., 2008; Wei and Mohammed, 2007; Moffett, 2003; Egbu et al., 2001; Liebowitz, 1999; Skyrme and Amidon, 1997). The questionnaire was based on these knowledge management activities, practices, challenges and attitudes. Questions were included to examine how contractors shared their knowledge in their organisations. In this research, a five-point Likert scale, one of the accepted methods of measuring attitudes toward independent variables, was used as a simple method to explore contractors’ perceptions towards knowledge sharing approaches. A Likert scale using a mean index formula (Majid and McCaffer, 1997) measures the respondents’ view on given questions. A five-point Likert scale was used as previous research indicates that a five-point scale works well and that any increase, such as to seven or nine points on a rating scale, does not improve the reliability of the ratings (Elmore and Beggs, 1975 as cited in Zainol and Wan Daud, 2011). A long scale may be cognitively difficult for respondents, while a short scale may be cognitively easy but may not differentiate respondents' opinions sufficiently (Weisberg et al., 1996). The scaling and interpretation adopted in this research survey are shown in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10 : Rating system for the study

Question Scale

1 2 3 4 5

Part 2 Highly used Used Fairly used Less used Not used at all Part 3 Very challenging Challenging Fairly challenging Less challenging Not challenging at all

Part 4 Very ready Ready Fairly ready Less ready Not ready at all Part 5.1 Very important Important Fairly important Less important Not important at all

Part 5.3 Very high level of contribution Some contribution Little contribution Low level contribution No contribution at all Part 6 Very influential Influential Fairly influential Less influential Not influential at all

The questionnaire used a combination of closed and open-ended questions. The respondent was asked to mark their response using either a tick (questioning in part 1) or to circle the appropriate answer for questions in parts two to six. For open-ended questions (questionnaire part five - section 5.2), the respondents were requested to rank the three most important approaches to knowledge sharing in their organisations and to give reasons why these were important to their organisation. The questionnaire (Appendix A) consisted of six parts:

Part One - general information about respondents including current job title/position; number of full-time employees working in the organisation; length of time of involvement or employment in local construction organisations; and the length of time of employment with their current employer.

Part Two - covered different knowledge-sharing approaches employed within the organisation. The starting point for the questionnaire was a list of formal and informal approaches that could be used in sharing knowledge within the organisation. The respondents were requested to circle the appropriate box to indicate the extent to which these approaches to knowledge sharing were currently practised in their organisation. Part Three – questions that explored the main challenges faced in the ‘setting-up’ and implementation of knowledge-sharing approaches. A list of challenges that was thought relevant was listed based on the secondary data received.

Part Four - ascertained the level of readiness of organisations to ‘set-up’ and implement knowledge-sharing approaches.

Part Five – consisted of three sections:

Section 5.1 required the respondents to express their perception on the significance (importance and benefits) of knowledge-sharing approaches in organisations. Based on the review of literature and on the pilot study findings, 10 important variables that could be acquired from knowledge-sharing approaches in organisations were listed. The respondents were requested to indicate the importance of each variable. Although the degree of importance varied within organisations, the questionnaire was expected to elicit a general assessment of the importance of knowledge sharing in organisations.

Section 5.2 asked the participants to rank a set of statements indicating the three most important knowledge-sharing approaches in their organisation and to give reasons for their importance in the organisation. Respondents were able to answer freely, unrestricted by the choices provided by the researcher in question 5.1.

Section 5.3 provided a list of ten variables and respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which knowledge-sharing approaches in their organisation contributed to the organisational performance. The respondents were requested to indicate the contribution of each variable.

Part Six – investigated the degree of influence that organisational structure, culture and human resource practices played in the implementation of knowledge sharing. The respondents identified variables that they perceived as being likely to contribute to factors influencing the implementation of knowledge sharing by responding on a designated scale. 4.5.5.2. Questionnaire measurement

Measurement is a procedure in which a researcher assigns numerals (numbers or other symbols) to empirical properties (variables) according to rules (Naoum, 2007). There are four levels of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval and ratio) and the collected data should fall within one or more of these levels. The level of measurement limits the statistical measures that can be used. The contractor’s perceptions survey was a rating scale, and therefore the study employed an ordinal scale for the questionnaire measurement.

4.5.5.3. Pre-testing questionnaire

To refine the questionnaire, a pre-test study was conducted. Yin (1994) distinguished between ‘pilot test’ and ‘pre-tests’. He viewed the former as helping ‘investigators to refine their data collection plans with respect to both the content of the data and the procedures to be followed’. Meanwhile a ‘pre-test’ is a formal ‘dress rehearsal’ in which the intended data collection plan is used as faithfully as possible, and is perhaps closer to the usual meaning of a pilot study. According to Robson (2006) and Dillman (1978), pre-testing of a questionnaire should be carried out and should include different groups, such as colleagues and potential users of the data. A questionnaire can be pre-tested on a small population sample, mainly to make sure that the instructions, questions, and scale items are clear; to avoid jargon or specialist languages; and also to avoid negative, personal questions, double barrelled and leading questions (Easterby–Smith et al., 2008). The intention of undertaking pre-testing was to further refine the questionnaire in order to improve its overall readability, the clarity of its questions, the reliability, format, and appropriateness of the measures and scales used, the effectiveness of the questions, and the time taken to complete the survey, as well as to elucidate any other possible issues that might have lead to improvements. Data collected during pre-testing also allowed the researcher to measure the internal validity of the scales.

In the context of this study, pre-testing was conducted in order to get feedback about the audience’s understanding of the questionnaire and provided some valuable insights. The initial draft of the eight-page questionnaire was critically reviewed by the researcher’s supervisor, five academics from within the fields of construction management at the University of Salford and ten Malaysian construction organisations practitioners, to ensure that the individual items and the overall format were easily understood. This helped increase the clarity of the questions to avoid interpretation errors. The ten practitioners selected for the pre-test study were broadly representative of the type of respondent to be interviewed in the main study. A sample size of 16 was deemed to be sufficient for the purpose of pre-testing the questionnaire, particularly considering the time constraints of this study. To gain an accurate and valid critique of the questionnaire, organisational members at top, middle and junior management were selected as part of the pre-test group. This gave an insight into any issues of concern within organisational, group and individual levels. The sample group was chosen for three main reasons: 1) their background

characteristics; 2) the researcher knew each contact person personally and; 3) their e-mail addresses were readily available.

The questionnaire was organised in eight pages. Although it was rather long, the questions were straight forward and the pre-test study revealed that it would take approximately 15 to 20 minutes to complete the questionnaire. Fifteen questionnaires were returned with comments and a final version of the questionnaire was prepared based on these. Only minor changes were required, mostly in the wording of the questions. As a final step, responses obtained during the pre-test were coded and analysed. This final pre-testing exercise took place over a period of approximately one month (1st - 25th September, 2010).

4.5.5.4. Questionnaire administration

The questionnaire distribution occurred on 20th October and 15th December 2010. The researcher contacted respondents in advance to explain the objectives of the study and to seek their cooperation. The respondent’s name, initial and titles were obtained from an earlier contact with the administration or the human resource manager in the construction organisation. The details on where to return the questionnaire appeared both in the covering letter as well as on the questionnaire itself. The respondents were given eight weeks to complete the questionnaires. The questionnaire was accompanied by a letter that provided information about: the researcher; the study; the purpose of the survey; the aim of the research; its importance to both the organisations and the construction industry; the deadline by which the questionnaire needed to be returned; and what the results would be used for. It also promised a guarantee of confidentiality and/or anonymity.

Non-response

Several strategies were used to maximise the response rate to the postal questionnaire (and, thereby, to increase reliability). Among the attempts to increase the response rate were:

 Pre-contact: organisations were contacted by telephone and email in advance with the aim of checking their address, confirming the number of employees and asking for the names of three different levels of managers (top, middle and junior managers).

 Sponsor: the name of the University of Salford appeared in the mailed questionnaire to inspire feelings of reliability and respect.

 Appeal: brief explanation of the aim of the research and the important role of the respondent in enabling its realisation.

 Stimulus: a summary of the survey results was promised (and later sent) as a kind of reward and in gratitude for their co-operation.

 Format: using a questionnaire that consisted of eight pages. Saunders et al. (2003) advised that questionnaires should be limited in length to between six and eight pages; otherwise the return rate may be adversely affected.

 Covering letter: a covering letter was included in order to explain the aim and objectives of the research and to ensure confidentiality.

 Sending questionnaires by mail with clear instructions on how to answer the questions.

 Reminders: questionnaires were followed up with a personal telephone call and the researcher organised multiple rounds of follow-ups to request questionnaire returns.

 Stamped and self-addressed envelopes were provided.

Follow-up efforts were conducted via telephone one week after the questionnaire was sent in order to check the organisations had received it, and to encourage a response. Fifty-six responses were received in the two weeks after the questionnaires were sent out. Five weeks after the initial mailing, a second reminder was sent out along with a new copy of the questionnaire. In week five, 148 more responses were received, with a total of 407 responses received by eight weeks after the initial mail out. Of these, 23 forms were incomplete and were thus disregarded (Table 4.12). The remaining 384 surveys were answered properly and completely with usable data, providing a response rate of 38.4% (Table 4.12). This is regarded as relatively high, since the respondents were managers with a high workload.

When considering the statistics for response rates Owen and Jones (1994) considered an average questionnaire return rate of 30% as satisfactory. They suggested that “on average, a response rate of 20 percent of questionnaires returned without reminders is considered satisfactory, while 40 percent is exceptionally good”. Alreck and Settle (2004) stated that “mail surveys with response rates over 30 percent are rare”. Finally, this rate is considered good because academic surveys conducted in Malaysian subjects are not known to have a high response rate (Westwood and Everett, 1995). Based on the above views, the response rate to this questionnaire was well above the acceptable level and provided a sample

population sufficient to allow statistical testing. The completed questionnaires received yielded sufficient data sets for the research objectives to be successfully achieved.

Table 4.11 : Action taken to increase return rate

Distribution Timing (P-day) Send Responses % Date P-day

Posting date 20 Oct 2010 1000 - 20 Oct 2010

First stage 29 Oct 2010

7 days after postal date check that organisations have received it - P-day + 7 days (week 1) First reminder 10 Nov 2010

15 days after postal date/ 3 weeks follow-up letters/ email to those who have not yet replied 56 5.6 P-day + 15 days (week 2) Second reminder