Interviews

Interviews are widely adopted as a data collection technique in various research strategies. Even though the data collected through an interview can take the form of quantitative and qualitative, it is more widely used in qualitative research. Robson (2002) highlights three generic forms of interviews. They are: structured, unstructured and semi-structured. Marshall and Rossman (1999) state that structured interviews are more suited to cover a particular phenomenon with more generalisation (more breadth), whereas unstructured interviews provide the facility to investigate a problem in more depth. Structured interviews are conducted based on a specific predetermined set of questions, and often the questions are asked in a specific sequence. These interviews often provide a cost-effective means of gathering data from a large sample. On the other hand, unstructured and semi structured interviews are often conducted within an informal setting, allowing the interviewee to communicate the ideas related to the subject freely. Even though these interviews are time consuming during the data collection and analysis, they permit the researcher to follow up questions to clarify the issues thus allowing a deeper exploration

79 of the subject area (Burns, 2000). As noted by Silverman (2001) the interviews in social science strive to generate data which give an authentic insight into people’s experience.

Semi-structured interviews have a formal interview guideline that can be modified as appropriate during the interview. The interviewer has the freedom to add, omit or change the questions as the interview progresses. Sharing the characteristics of both structured and unstructured interviews, semi-structured interviews are not only a cost-effective data collection technique, but also a flexible technique to explore the interviewee’s knowledge and experience related to the subject matter using appropriate probes and prompts. Since this particular research requires in-depth acquisition of views from interviewees, semi- structured interviews were used as the main data collection technique for the collection of expert opinion and case studies. Since this research is leading to a PhD, there are obvious time and other resource limitations, preventing the use of a totally unstructured interview technique.

Interview guidelines were prepared prior to conducting the semi-structured interviews with the respondent following pilot interviews and several stages of revision. Prior to conducting each interview, each interviewee was given a brief introduction on the aim of the study and the purpose of the interview by using a study brief (refer Appendix F). All interviews were recorded with a digital voice recorder, with the prior approval of the interviewees, as it enabled the interviewer to pay attention to the answers given and does not require the interviewer to take down everything. After completion of the interview, they were transcribed manually using MS Word.

As described in Section 3.4.1, the first phase of empirical investigations on leadership practices to address cultural and behavioural challenges was carried out via expert interviews. 20 experts in construction partnering from built environment education and the construction industry were selected and interviewed for this study. A combination of purposive sampling methods, expert sampling and snowball sampling was adopted to select these experts (Singh, 2007; Babbie, 2010). Since Egan’s seminal report on ‘Rethinking Construction’ in 1998, the philosophy of partnering was energised within the academic community and among industry practitioners. The ‘Accelerating Change’ report in 2002 (Strategic forum for construction), presented a progress map on rethinking construction philosophies. Using this date as a significant milestone, experts with a

80 minimum of 5 years research or/and practical experience by 2007 were selected for this study.

Academic experts were selected due to their association with significant publications, reports and projects which considered partnering related research. This expertise was linked to research areas such as process mapping, relational contracts, lean construction, partnering challenges, project management, capability maturity, and construction alliances. Table 3-4 provides the list of academic experts considered for this research.

Table 3-4: List of academic experts Academic expert

ID Academic position

Partnering related research experience

AE01 Research fellow 5 years AE02 Senior research fellow 9 years AE03 Senior lecturer 9 years

AE04 Professor More than 10 years AE05 Senior Lecturer More than 10 years AE06 Senior research fellow 7 years

AE07 Professor 9 years AE08 Lecturer 7 years

AE09 Professor More than 10 years AE10 Lecturer 6 years

The snowball sampling technique was used to select industry experts who had more than 5 years of practical partnering experience by 2007. As shown in Table 3-5 experts were carefully selected to represent client, consultant and contractors. They were engaged in several large scale infrastructure projects including hospitals, electricity, railways and schools.

Table 3-5: List of industry experts Industry expert

ID Position

Partnering related experience IP01 Quantity Surveyor 7 Years

IP02 Construction Manager 6 years

IP03 Planner 5 years

IP04 M&E Quantity Surveyor 5 years

IP05 Client Project manager More than 10 years IP06 Project Quantity Surveyor 6 years

81

Industry expert

ID Position

Partnering related experience IP07 Project manager More than 10 years IP08 Construction manager More than 10 years IP09 Design manager More than 10 years IP10 Site Manager 9 years

During the case study phase, the interviews were conducted based on the interview guidelines, having considered the input from the expert interviews. Due to the nature of the study, the main project leadership members were selected for case study interviews. The contractor’s project managers from both cases were able to arrange and provide accommodation to conduct these interviews. Table 3-6 summarises the details of the interviews conducted within project X. Refer to Section 5.3.1 for further details of these interviews.

Table 3-6: Details of interviewees from project X

Interviewee Position

XPM Client’s project manager

XMC Main contractor’s senior project manager

XDM Design manager

XSC Subcontractor

XCM Construction manager

The leadership team interviewed from project Y consisted of a client’s project manager, contractor’s project manager, a major subcontractor and supplier, design manager and construction manager. Table 3-7 summarises the details of the interviews conducted within project Y. Refer to Section 5.3.2 for further details of these interviews.

Table 3-7: Details of interviewees from project Y

Interviewee Position

YPM Client’s project manager

YMC Main contractor’s project manager

YDM Design manager

YSC Subcontractor and supplier YCM Construction manager

82