I undertook a needs assessment of the training program with three groups, each consisting of the Quality Management Representative (QMR) and staff from three food factories. I undertook a focus group interview with these groups in order to find out the nature of their current practice (Actual state, A). I used the open-ended approach advocated by Krueger (1998a, b, c) in order to allow participants to select the manner in which they responded. Each focus group interview encouraged interaction among the managers and staff, and allowed them to modify their operations following the discussion. The interviews sought to determine details of recommended practices that needed to be carried in food factories seeking ISO registration.
In this phase, I used three focus group interviews to obtain qualitative information about the perception and attitudes of three QMRs and 21 other company personnel (managers, supervisors and staff) – a total of 24 people. At the same time, I undertook to review of relevant literature from ISO and other sources to determine details of the recommended practices for food factories (Desired state, D). My intention was to undertake a comparison of discrepancies between desired and actual outcomes, which Owen, with Rogers (1999), has describe as the need, N, where N = D - A. The
comparison of discrepancies between desired and actual practices, however, proved difficult as it was practically impossible to clearly distinguish between the two elements. The ISO literature, instead, focuses solely on the standards to be met; the literature gives in indication as to how these standards are to be achieved. The ISO 9000 family, the standards most applicable to the food production factories addresses ‘Quality management’. According to ISO documents (International Standards, ISO 9001, 2000):
This means what the organization does to fulfil:
the customer's quality requirements, and
applicable regulatory requirements, while aiming to
enhance customer satisfaction, and
achieve continual improvement of its performance in pursuit of these objectives.
What is needed in terms of recommended practices simply was not addressed; thus, it was necessary to determine these from those factories that had already achieved ISO registration on the understanding that these practices would represent a ‘desired state’.
I moved, therefore, to attempt to distinguish desired and actual outcomes from the group focus interviews. Again, this proved an impossible task as discussions with the focus groups indicated that the boundaries between desired and actual outcomes were blurred. Again, it was clear to me that Desired and Actual Outcomes could not be readily distinguished and that only those outcomes which were common to the three factories should the focus of the research. As a consequence, I resorted to using the relationship suggested by Boonying (2007, 44):
N(P) = D A
The needs policy elements, N(P), of each factory were seen to lie at the intersection of emerging or desired policy outcomes, D, as identified and implemented by Senior Management, and actual policy elements already in place, A. These relationships are shown, diagrammatically, in Figure 3.1.
Chapter 3 Methodology
FIGURE 3.1 DETERMINING NEEDS MODEL
Source: Adapted from Boonying, 2007
Focus group principles
Sleezer & Russ-Eft ( 2007, 46) point out that, in the focus group interview method, people who have something in common are brought together and asked their opinions and ideas about a specific topic. Most focus groups are made up of five to eight people.
To be effective, focus groups require skilled facilitators. Krueger & Cosey (2000) noted that a facilitator must be mentally prepared, familiar with such techniques as the five-second pause and probing for more information, and able to show positive regard and empathy for participants. As Schwarz (1995) points out, focus group facilitators must keep in mind that they are not
Desired & Actual Outcomes 1:
Factory 1 Focus Group
Desired & Actual Outcomes 3:
Factory 3 Focus Group DESIRED & ACTUAL
OUTCOMES
Desired & Actual Outcomes 2:
Factory 2 Focus Group
content experts, mediators, arbitrators, or judges. Schwarz’s suggestions for facilitators included the following: accept responses in a nonjudgmental manner, avoid making decisions or comments about a group’s work, and encourage an atmosphere of openness and mutual respect. The work of conducting needs assessment via focus group involves three phases: prepare, conduct, and report (Sleezer & Russ-Eft, 2007, 49).
Focus groups are group interviews. A moderator guides the interview while a small group discusses the topics that the interviewer raises. What the participants in the group say during their discussions are the essential data obtained from focus groups. Typically, there are six to eight participants who come from similar backgrounds, and the moderator is a well-trained professional who works from a predetermined set of discussion topics.
Krueger (2002) recommends that the first steps in any focus group interviews are as follows:
decide whether the focus is appropriate;
decide who to involve;
listen to your target audience;
put your thoughts in writing.
He also recommends asking questions that yield powerful information, e.g., use open-ended questions, avoid dichotomous questions and use ‘think back’ questions, use different types of questions, use questions that get participants involved, focus the questions, and be cautious of serendipitous questions. A group session should last between 1-2 hours. When analysing focus group data, the analyst should consider the meanings of words, examine the context by finding the triggering stimulus and then interpret the comment in light of that environment, frequency or extensiveness, intensity, specificity, and finding big ideas.
Conducting a focus group requires a high level of resources: I, as researcher, needed to be familiar with facilitation techniques, how to write appropriate questions, and how to analyse the qualitative data. Fortunately, I
Chapter 3 Methodology
had gained experience with focus group facilitation in my workplace and my supervisor assisted with the writing of appropriate questions. The analysis of transcripts used the standards techniques of data reduction described below (see 45).
Advantages of focus groups
Focus groups are most often used as an input to design. Advantages of focus group interviews (webcredible, 2006) include the following:
they are quick, cheap and relatively easy to assemble;
good for getting rich data in participants’ own words and developing deeper insights;
people are able to build on one another’s responses and come up with ideas they might not have;
provide an opportunity to involve people in data analysis;
participants can act as checks and balance on one another.
Focus groups can be used at the preliminary or exploratory stages of a study (Krueger, 1998); during a study, perhaps to evaluate or develop a particular program of activities (Race et al, 1994); or after a program has been completed, to assess its compact or to generate further avenues of research. Focus groups can be used either as a method in their own right or to complement other methods, especially for triangulation (Morgan, 1998) and validity checking.
Krueger (1998 a, b, c) suggests that the technique has several advantages. It is low cost and provides speedy results. Its flexible format allows the facilitators to explore unanticipated issues and encourages interaction among participants. In a group setting, participants provide checks and balances, thus minimising false or extreme views.
Limitations of focus groups
Limitations of focus groups include: the responses of each participant are not independent, a few dominant focus group members can skew the session, focus group requires a skilled and experienced moderator, and the data which results from focus group requires a skilled and experienced analyser. Focus groups have other limitations. The flexible format makes the process susceptible to facilitator bias, which can undermine the validity and reliability of findings (Morgan, 1998). Discussions can be sidetracked or dominated by a few vocal individuals. Focus group interviews generate relevant qualitative information, but do not discuss data from which generalisation can be made for a whole population. Moreover, the information can be difficult to analyse, particularly as comments need to be interpreted in the context of the group setting.
Participants
I established three focus groups, one group for each factory. The first focus group consisted of the QMR and a team of seven company staff (a total of eight persons) working in a premium dried fruit factory, a branch of an American company in Thailand. The second focus group consisted of the QMR and a team of six company staff (a total of seven persons) working in a health and dairy food factory, an Australia-Thai Joint Company. The third focus group consisted of the QMR and a team of eight company staff (a total of nine persons) working in a tapioca flour factory in Thailand. I invited them to participate by means of a personal letter (see Attachments 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, and 3.5).
Data collection
I made audio-tape recordings of all the focus group interviews. As a consequence, the participants were able to share with me, and the others in the group, their shared experiences; to identify key factors for developing
Chapter 3 Methodology
best practices, pool knowledge, resources and guidelines for developing Training Program; and to develop networks with their colleagues who faced similar issues in their workplaces.
I used the findings from these focus groups to identify key elements related to the actual Training Programs to meet ISO Food Factory Standards in Thailand. These elements related to the following:
1. Finding out from key staff, details – in relation to operational issues – of the practices, criteria and standards applied to three food factories in Thailand currently seeking ISO Certification. These issues included: record keeping; customer relations; transportation; quality and supply of raw materials; quality of finished goods.
2. Identifying, from ISO documentation, the operational requirements for practices, criteria and standards to be applied to ISO Certificated food factories.
Data analysis
I applied standard qualitative data reduction procedures of analysis by induction (Denzin & Lincoln, 1998, 2000; Owen, with Rogers, 1999; Owen, 2006) to analyse the data in all phases of this research. Generally, this involved identifying a specific idea contained in a given statement, grouping or clustering common specific ideas to create a generalised idea, and finally grouping the generalised ideas to create an organising idea. In Phase 1, I produced transcripts of the three focus groups, having used techniques for systematic elicitation, followed by the identification of specific training needs, clustering these to produce a set of generalised training needs, and finally clustering these to identify an organising concept for the development of policy outcomes for Training Programs to meet ISO Food Factory Standards.