Sampling and Respondents

As already known from studies with nominal group techniques, selecting appropriate experts is a very critical element of the research process as it directly impacts quality of the conclusions drawn (Hsu and Sandford 2007). It requires rigorous reflections to ensure that qualified experts are identified and given appropriate chance to take part (Delbecq et al. 1975). While not struggling to be representative of any population and therefore not depending on a statistical sample, the research design of the Delphi group decision technique foresees a thorough process for the selection of experts (Schmidt 1997). Accordingly, this PhD complies with this by conducting an initial detailed preparation and identification of categories and experts, an upfront investigation and exchange followed by subsequent invitations. In the literature no precise criteria for selection process are defined and descriptions remain partially ambiguous (Hsu and Sandford 2007). That said, however, in keeping with the recommendations from emergent literature, the selection of experienced and qualified experts were done using a multiple-lens approach. This was completed via in-depth examinations of individuals’ related backgrounds, skills and disciplines as well as a review of related literature and concerned organisations and using the personal network as a supportive initial reference (Okoli and Pawlowski 2004).

The preliminary contacts were made via phone and e-mails, as this provided the researcher with an opportunity to outline the research topic and intended outcomes of the study as a means of securing the commitment and participation in multiple interrogation rounds. It was of grave importance to the research that eligible individuals were identified; eligible individuals within this context are those who possess more than related knowledge to the topic under investigation. As such, it was necessary that in addition to knowledge, target participants were both willing and capable of conveying and revising helpful judgements and solutions to achieve consensus (Hsu and Sandford 2007). Simultaneously, the iden- tified experts were asked for nominations of additional experts based on the descriptions provided. Furthermore, a list for biographical and contact information was created that included all participants including a grouping into one of the four respective expertise- sections and for tracking their status of feedbacks per Delphi-round for progress tracing. For such studies, it would be relevant to describe the selected panellists, in order for the reader to gain confidence in the reliability, relevance and validity of the findings of the study. The credentials of the panellists were thoroughly examined however these are un- able to be communicated to the reader due to ethical constraints (Hsu and Sandford 2007)

as confidentiality was assured to the participants. In fulfilment of the study, it was necessary to undergo an ethical approval process, as it was necessary to obtain consent from all participants. As a means of ensuring thus respective information-sheets and con- sent-forms were distributed to all participants. After the selection of experts and the initial contacts, the nominated participants were invited via personalised emails that complied with the documents provided for the ethical approval obtained upfront from the University of Salford. As such, it contained a detailed information sheet, consent form, explanatory glossary for all 25 elements and a link to the online survey (See appendix numbers II, III and IV).

In compliance with the anonymity requirements, personal details of the participants have been withheld. That said, to provide the reader with a general insight into the participants, the participants were made up of senior consultants or subject-matter experts from the fields of KM, PM, (virtual) teamwork and organisational e-learning, all of which related to IS to some degree. Included within the participants there are those who hold job titles such as senior lecturers, trainers and consultants, in addition to CEOs of mid-size consulting companies or companies providing knowledge management solutions. The group of participants is further enriched due to the presence of a former project manager who has experience of heading projects (Global Head of PM) at a large, prominent multinational company. Furthermore, many of the experts were publishers and editors in related publications such as the Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects (IJELLO). This variety was preferred as homogenous panels are less creative than heterogeneous ones, which is important when eliciting personal opinions and judgements, which are likely to be influenced by bias (Okoli and Pawlowski 2004). The following figure depicts in which of the four core-fields the selected experts have profound expertise. It assures that all participants were contributing with individual and profound expertise in one up to all of the four core fields PM, KM, virtual teamwork and e-learning management. Figure 3.3 summarises in which of these four fields the individual experts indicated profound expertise.

Figure 3.3 Response of panellists (k=14) to question: “In which of the following fields do you have profound expertise?”

This also ensures coverage of all four associated and influential fields from the conceptual framework and helps to defend the study’s results. As outlined, the evolutionary approach from the EPSRC Network research, mainly the first documented research project in PM adhered to this particular approach. In this respect, the seminal research relied on the participation of practitioners, consultants and academics, all of whom were used in the Delphi study and its selection of experts. Again, names were excluded for confidentiality- reasons. Five of the respondents, for example, possess in-depth knowledge in the combined PKM fields, including experts for solutions specialising also in the combination of KM and PM around teamwork.

Finally, the selection of most suitable candidates was at the discretion of the researcher and therefore depended on his own judgment; the suitability of each participant was therefore assessed upon making contact with each individual and ensuring that they not only possessed the necessary experience but also held an interest into the topic that was being explored (Hsu and Sandford 2007). In general, it cannot be expected that all chosen experts have the same level of a particular expertise, as often falsely anticipated in Delphi studies. This is especially valid for such complex and technology-related issues as in this study, where the heterogeneous expertise in the different related fields actually is a benefit for the intended cross-fertilisation and best practice transfer (Hsu and Sandford 2007). The related danger of producing too generic statements due to a lack of insights from certain

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Project Management Knowledge Management

Virtual Teamwork E-Learning Management Amount of pa rticip ants who se lec ted thi s fie ld

participants is also prevented by the referenced explanatory glossary, which provides background information for each of the 25 analysed e-learning practices.

Cross-fertilising between the experts from the particular areas further enhanced the quality and creativity of the produced solutions. With business experts being included with profound background knowledge from current issues in companies, another benefit of the study is the potential that the developed results can be applied to a real business setting. This also ensures applicability and usefulness of the final result, enriching the thought process of the other experts during the course of the study with further business-oriented ideas and impulses.

Besides the four core fields, the experts also bring in multi-faceted additional relevant knowledge that further stimulates the solution development. These additional fields include operations, lean, organisational, and process management as well as specialised HR techniques like 360-feedback, online questionnaires or learning methodologies for adults. From an industry-perspective there is also a variety of experience including the highly complex and integrated supply chain management.

Regarding the satisfactory amount of experts, literature suggests that this depends on the amount required for representative pooling as well as data processing capability by the researcher. As such, it is suggested that a minimally sufficient number of individuals should be chosen as this would allow the researcher with the option to verifying findings via follow-up communication (Delbecq et al. 1975). That said, however, there are risks associated with too large or too small samples and despite this, specific numbers or consensus on guidelines are not provided within the literature. There is indeed some basis to this as each study is unique in terms of size, aims and more importantly resources available to researchers. As such, to ensure a larger sample size, a vast number of experts were contacted and their participation requested so as to maximise the number of final participants. The final number of participants chosen was aligned with findings from the literature where mostly around fifteen to twenty experts are chosen whereas ten to fifteen experts were also often sufficiently interviewed (Delbecq et al. 1975).

The following sections summarises the sampling strategy, population and timeframe. The selected sampling strategy derives from the selected research method and design and considers also ethics. Sample size and selection are critical issues in Delphi studies. Although the expert-panellists in scope have to be articulate, motivated, ideally affected by

and knowledgeable about the wide-ranging researched field, it was challenging to define the sample, as no single limited community of appropriate experts exists. Here literature also confirms challenges in determining the research strategy between a too homogenous panel vs. diversity required (Day and Bobeva 2005). As there is an enormous potential expert population, the sample strategy had to be decided between probability and the chosen non-probability (purposive) sampling. For practical purposes the decision was subject to the nature of the research issue, which is narrow in scope and therefore requires in-depth expertise for the purposive intention of the Delphi study (Day and Bobeva 2005). This differs from wide social studies that can work with random sampling. The sampling frame is also biased by the initial and personal contact with the experts, which required the explained preparations based on the discussed criterion and contributed to the positive feedbacks and willingness to participate. Regardless of the original sampling strategy, research literature confirms that the results and selections will be deducted from data gathered from a self-selected sub-set of the original population (Day and Bobeva 2005). Overall practicalities have also been considered while choosing the sampling strategy (e.g. access to experts and time available), and as previously discussed, anonymity and neutrality was applied as it is found useful within IS and business Delphi studies that try to trim the extremes (Schmidt 1997). As advised in the Delphi literature, self-rating of their own expertise by the panellists during the survey, confirmed the initial criterion assessment carried out by the researcher (Schmidt 1997).

3.5 Online Survey-Questionnaire Design, Constructs-Items and