Procedures for data collection and analysis

The procedures for data collection and analysis in defining a typical small motel are illustrated in Figure 4.4.

Figure 4-4 The process for defining a typical small motel

Identifying key characteristics of small motel types

Interviews with key informants

Analysis of RACV Guide

Validation of

characteristics Conjoint model

Ranking by key

informants Conjoint analysis

Conjoint model development

Testing of characteristics of small motel types

Definition of a typical small motel

Convergent interview technique. Convergent interviewing is a technique that uses a structured approach to clarify what needs to be done in the early stages of a study. In this technique qualitative information is collected, analysed and interpreted in relation to people’s attitudes, beliefs, knowledge and opinions via the use of a limited number of interviews with experts. The intention is for the information to be collected until it converges on the most important issues within the topic (Carson, Gilmore, Perry and Gronhaug 2001; Rao and Perry 2003). In this case it was the characteristics common to motels considered to be small and which are relevant to performance considerations. Convergent interviewing is generally selected to either assist with the planning stages of a survey in a well-established area or in an area where there is little or no established theoretical base or methodology (Carson et al., 2001c). In this research it was selected because, although the literature about business performance is extensive, little is known about the characteristics of a motel that affect performance management. Although it is understood that large motels operate differently to small motels the characteristics that determine a motel as being small were yet to be identified.

Essentially, it is a cyclic series of in-depth interviews with experts that allow the researcher to refine the question after each interview to converge on the issues in a topic area: it is a series of successive approximations arising from a continuous

refinement of method and content’ (Carson, Gilmore, Perry and Gronhaug,

2001c, p. 72).

However, a limitation of the technique is the time cost in analysing what can be large quantities of data from each interview. Nevertheless, the technique is well matched to this research and although costly was deemed to be an appropriate approach, particularly in a field where the key constructs regarding the characterisation of small motel had not yet been identified.

Choice of domain experts. To conduct the convergent interviews for developing the typology (and the later refinement of the model) a panel of industry experts was required. To get the ‘right panel’, the selection of the members was important. The expert reference panel consisted of eight domain experts who provided a rich body of data. The number of panel members was determined by the point at which the data converged (as outlined in the previous section). The data converged after seven interviews with an additional panel member sought to confirm that this was the case. To ensure that relevant information was collected, the domain experts were drawn from the motel and small business sectors. The domain experts were chosen on the basis of their specific expertise within the small motel and small business sectors. The expert reference panel was also selected to ensure a mix of practical and theoretical expertise in a range of areas considered important to successful small motel management. As location within Australia was not an important element of the study, the members were largely drawn from Victoria for reasons of ease of access. However, one expert was located in Western Australia and one in New South Wales. Details of the expert panel members, including number of interviews and type of expertise are shown in Table 4.1.

Table 4-1 Number of interviews, type of expertise and years of experience for each expert panel member

Expert Number of

interviews

Type of expertise Years of

experience in their field

1 2 Small motel operator 25

2 2 Academia - small business 12

3 2 Hospitality broker and previous small

business owner

20

4 2 Small motel operator 9

5 2 Financial services to the hospitality sector 10

6 2 Motel and hotel industry association CEO 15?

7 1 Academia - hospitality and previous small

motel operator

18

8 2 GM of hotel chain 30

The members of the expert reference panel needed to be available for two face-to-face interviews (the first for Stage 1A and the second for Stage 1B) and to complete one questionnaire distributed via mail, as part of the Stage One conjoint analysis. The total time commitment was approximately four to five hours over a period of five to six months.

Dealing with issues of validity, bias and error. To ensure that issues of validity, bias and error were overcome, the interview process was carefully managed. Adherence to rigorous processes in the data collection and analysis stages were key to quality outcomes. Set times and locations for the interviews were organised with the experts via phone and email. Instructions and interview guidelines were sent to each panel member before the interviews. Each panel member was informed in advance that approximately one to one and half hours would be needed for each interview. The interviews were located at venues most convenient to the panel members. As a result these interviews were undertaken at the workplaces and homes of the panel members. An interview guide was developed and modified after each interview to ensure questions relating to new data were included in the following interview.

Each interview was audio taped and transcribed immediately following the interview in order to manage the data and ensure accuracy of reporting. Once the interviews were transcribed the data were coded by the researcher and then summarised in a matrix. These details will be presented in Chapter 5.

Undertaking the convergent interviews. As suggested for this approach (Carson, Gilmore et al. 2001; Rao and Perry 2003) the interview commenced with a general question and then proceeded to further open-ended questions specifically related to the research issues as stated in Chapter 3. The questions for each interview were carefully developed to enable the gathering of rich data on small motels and their performance. Careful note taking and recording enabled the researcher to know where the issues converged or diverged on specific issues.

In developing the questions for the phase one convergent interviews the RACV Guide was referred to in order to provide panel members with some classifications for grouping small motels. The initial classifications drawn from the guide included number of rooms, location and star rating. Based on an understanding of small business performance drivers, which was gained from several years in working with small businesses, the researcher also added the classifications of age of business and ownership. This full list was included in the first interview guide.

Prior to the questions and probes about the classifications of motels, an initial question about key success factors important to operating a small motel was asked to probe for views on whether there were common success factors for all motels or whether the experts viewed success as dependent on particular types of motels. The responses were summarised in a matrix. Using the summary matrix as an analysis tool the researcher was able to determine the groupings and sub-groupings where there was convergence and common agreement. As a result of the analysis the groupings and sub-groupings were included in the conjoint questionnaire for further validation.

Conjoint analysis. Reliance on the convergent interviews was not sufficient to provide a typology for small motels in Australia. Although the views’ of the expert panel members converged on several characteristics the importance of each characteristic was not determined. Therefore, conjoint analysis was selected to confirm and validate the characteristics. Conjoint analysis is a multivariate technique used to understand how respondents develop preferences for products or services or ideas. ‘It is based on the premise that consumers evaluate the value of a product/service or idea by combining the separate amounts of utility provided by each

attribute’ (Hair, Anderson, Tatham and Black, 1992, p. 382). The conjoint analysis method has the advantage of determining the predictor variables and their respective values according to respondent preferences (Hair et. al., 1992). In this study conjoint analysis was selected to define the concept of a small motel with the optimum combination of characteristics and to show the relative contributions of each attribute and each level to the overall definition of this concept. The data collected from the convergent interviews resulted in several factors. These factors and their levels were entered into SPSS to generate a set of full profile descriptions and to allow for the estimation of the orthogonal main effects of each factor. As is customary in interpreting conjoint analysis a disaggregate approach was employed (Hair et. al. 1992) where each respondent was modeled separately, and the fit of the model was examined for each respondent and then compared to the aggregated results of the overall sample.

The full description of the conjoint analysis and the resultant typology is summarised in Chapter 5 and detailed in Appendix B. In the process of typology development four characteristics were identified by the industry experts as being important to discussions and comparisons about business performance. The typology was valuable to the study as it removed the ‘it depends’ element, which had emerged in previous discussions of performance, and ensured that all the informants involved in stage two could focus their views and experiences.