Primary Data Collection

Primary data was collected using semi-structured interviews with a variety of stakeholders from the organisations, the software vendors and the consultants involved in the implementation of the ERP system; observation through visits to the organisation was an additional element of primary data collection (Ritchie and Lewis, 2010). In order to fill gaps in the information, secondary evidence was gathered from the companies; for instance when participants were unable or unwilling to provide full details of certain aspects of the implementation or individuals initially involved with the ERP implementation were no longer employed in the organisation concerned.

The primary data was collected predominantly by means of semi-structured interviews rather than other alternatives of a structured or unstructured nature. Structured interviews have been frequently described as formal discussions, in which a set of predetermined, mainly open questions could be prepared by the researcher. In the meeting the researcher would adhere to the specified order and control the interview. Conversely, unstructured interviews enable the participants to take control in initiating the discussion; this form of interview was considered a difficult task for an untrained and/or inexperienced researcher and inappropriate in this context.

The semi-structured interview utilised in this study represented a combination of the two approaches; the researcher was able to plan the questions in a logical sequence thus creating a prepared framework for the discussion. Furthermore, it permits the ad- hoc omission of questions that have been answered or rendered inappropriate by an earlier response. Similarly, additional questions could be added to gain further insight and, therefore, semi-structured interviews were considered more valuable for the type of rich data required for the research problem to be fully explored (Ritchie and Lewis, 2010). A pre-prepared meeting plan assisted both the researcher and the participant, prompting the researcher to remain focused on the key questions and enabling a confident approach, which is particularly important when interviewing new people in unfamiliar circumstances and focusing on technical input, in addition to opinions and feelings (Ritchie and Lewis, 2010; Creswell, 2008; Jonker and Pennink, 2010; Saunders et al, 2009). The format, timing, content and location of the interviews varied according to the personnel concerned.

A preliminary interview was sought with the key person who had the most information about the implementation history, documentation and details; this enabled the researcher to gather published documents, in order to achieve a basic understanding of the implementation details and to gain any clarification necessary before question design and interviewing began (Jonker and Pennink, 2010). The interviews with executives were scheduled towards the end of the interview period for two reasons; firstly the executives’ busy schedule required the appointment to be made well in advance, and secondly it was considered that greater value could be gleaned from the executive interviews after capturing and studying the most important findings from those with the non-executive participants.

The interviews were all conducted on the organisation’s premises, face to face wherever possible. Telephone interviews supplemented these, but were limited to cases in which the participants were not considered key personnel or a face to face interview was not possible. The time period allocated for the interviews varied, depending on the availability of the interviewees and the time slots they could dedicate. Wherever possible, the researcher requested interviews to be divided into sessions: the first was to collect preliminary data from the individual, whereas the second was to discuss and develop a dynamic conversation after the researcher had developed a preliminary, holistic understanding of the entire implementation. Therefore the maximum time for interviews requested did not exceed three hours, with breaks; the minimum interview time was not less than forty-five minutes. A location that was convenient to the participant and that allowed sufficient privacy was selected (Ritchie and Lewis, 2010; Jonker and Pennink 2010; Creswell, 2008).

Interviews were not recorded since the researcher considered that this may be perceived as inappropriate to the local culture; and may have had the consequence of inhibiting interviewees from expressing their honest opinions and beliefs (Johnson et al. 2009). The researcher took notes using pencil and white paper only. Since the companies had different approaches to the design of ERP implementation, the number of participants interviewed varied, ranging from three to six people from the customer side, a minimum of two from the consulting side and one representative from the vendor side. During the interviews, the interviewees were allowed to raise any topic or idea of interest to the study. Follow-up phone calls were also made to seek

clarification or more information regarding the data collected; this process added to the reliability and validity of the study (Kirk and Miller, 1986).

The consistency that was evident in the responses from the participants in each case was a measure of the reliability. The researcher sought to improve the level of reliability by ensuring that the psychological environment in which the data was collected was appropriate to gaining accurate data in terms of facts, feeling and attitudes; the lack of recording techniques, the fact that researcher's native language was the same as that of the participants and the familiarity of the locations used for the semi-structured interview locations were likely to have provided a feeling of privacy, security and confidentiality (Ritchie and Lewis, 2010; Jonker and Pennink, 2010). Reliability was also improved by retesting of qualitative data against the transcripts (Creswell, 2008).