Chapter 3: Methodology
3.5 The data acquisition process
3.5.1 Research type 1 (R1)
3.5.1.2. Semi structured interviews (D2, D5, D8)
Having identified the key area of research the next stage was to test how Carillion’s role was viewed by informed internal sustainability and procurement team members. This process described by Sandelowski (1995) as “purposeful sampling”, was undertaken in May-June 2015 to draw on the shared knowledge and experience of sustainable procurement within the company (D2). Discussion with Carillion’s Supply Chain Director and Sustainability Manager identified seven members of the supply chain team and two of the sustainability team likely to provide relevant insights (see Table 7). This initial
89 review included both high and medium-level decision makers (as defined by Carillion) which provided a strategic overview of current procurement and sustainability within the company and the wider industry. Interviewees were also selected to offer a mix of job roles, from strategic to joint venture procurement, key project management, supplier accreditation and on-site sustainability monitoring. All interviewees engaged with this doctoral research are identified in the text by code descriptions to preserve anonymity. A master code list, identifying all participants is held separately to all research files and is held on an encrypted hard drive. This is available only to the researcher. All codes used within this research are presented in Appendix 5 for ease of reference. The reader may find it useful to have these available when reading chapters 4-7.
Table 7: Team and job role of orientation interview participants (D2)
At this initial stage of enquiry, where the key research questions had been established, but where the researcher had only a limited understanding of how Carillion teams understood and perceived sustainability a semi-structured format was selected. This format was adopted during these orientation interviews to allow major questions to be asked in the most appropriate sequence and for the researcher to ‘probe for more information’ (Gilbert, Stoneman, 2016). This also allowed the interviewer to explore themes or comments in more depth. To review the structure of the interview prompt questions, see Appendix 3 Interview, workshop and survey questions
Appendix: 3a Semi-structured orientation interview questions (D2).
Team Code Role
Length of Interview Supply Chain SC-A1 Supplier Accreditation and Monitoring 1hr Supply Chain SC-A2 Supplier Accreditation and Management 1hr Supply Chain SC-D1
Managing Regional Strategy, supply chain procurement - multiple projects, client liaison 1hr Supply Chain SC-RM1
Managing Regional Supply Chain Team- multiple projects,
client liaison 1hr
Supply Chain SC-RM2
Managing Regional Supply Chain Team- multiple projects,
client liason 1hr
Supply Chain SC-JV Managing Procurement - Joint Venture 1.15hr Supply Chain SC-P1
Leading team for large public sector project, delivery,
client liaison 1hr
Sustainability S-CM Corporate Sustainability - policy, strategy and reporting 45mins Sustainability S-BM
Business Unit Sustainability Strategy - monitoring,
90 A further two interview programmes, in each case using a semi-structured interview format, were undertaken to
a) deepen the understanding of the Carillion intra-company team perspectives of the main contractor’s role within the construction network. Interviews were undertaken with a range of internal team members. They were specifically targeted at discovering their perspectives on the network actor values across the supply chain, the importance of longer-term relationships with the client and their approaches to sustainability action (for interview structure see Annex 3c). b) to explore the depth of knowledge across the supply network. This involved
working with the category management team and preferred suppliers. A standardised semi structured format interview format (Annex 3c) was created. It was based around a topical issue: recycled content.
a) Cross company teams: theme-led interviews (D5)
To investigate specific issues that were emerging a series of topic-based interviews were undertaken with staff members, many of whom were outside the supply chain or sustainability team. Unless noted in Table 8, interviews were conducted face to face.
91
Table 8: Carillion teams: topic-based interviews (D5)
Carillion Team Code Role
Topic
Length of Interview Operations O- AD0 Account Director -
Building project
Client drivers/role of long term relationships
45min (tel con)
Work Winning
WW-PM Proposals Manager Client drivers 1 hour (tel con)
WW – PC Proposals Co-ordinator Client drivers (included in above) Operations O-BIM BIM Implementation
Manager
Technology
1 hour
Design D-HD Head of Design Impotence 2 hours
Category
Management CM-D Director
Values and relationships
in supply chain 1.5 hours Supply Chain SC-D1 National Director Values in supply chain 40 mins (tel
con)
Supply Chain SC-RM1
Regional Director (Building)
Values in supply chain 40mins (tel con)
Supply Chain SC-RM3
Regional Director (Infrastructure)
Knowledge transfer 40 mins x 2 (skype) Sustainability S-SA Sustainability Advisor
CCS
Long term relationships
1hr (tel con)
Sustainability S-BM Sustainability Manager CCS
Long term relationships 1hr (tel con) & written response
Members of teams were based across the UK and it was not possible for all interviews to be face to face. Contacts within the Carillion teams were identified by the industrial supervisor, following discussion with the researcher. The researcher had a topic they wished to probe in greater depth, but the interviews were allowed to flow, drawing from the interviewee issues they felt were important. All notes taken during the interviews were logged on MAXQDA and coded.
b) Carillion category management team and preferred supplier interviews (D8)
Following attendance at several category management team meetings and ad hoc conversations, it became clear that this team held a pivotal role, linking procurement, operations, bid winning teams, and for some projects, the client. To explore this network spanning role in greater depth a more formal set of discussion-based interviews were undertaken during March-May 2017 (Table 9). The interviews were held at sites most convenient for the staff; the Midland Metropolitan hospital construction site in
92 Birmingham, Carillion Euston, London offices and the Kings Cross, London construction site. The interviews were undertaken as semi structured discussions, with two Heads of Category being present at two of the sessions and a Head of Category and Category manager at the third interview. The S-CM and S-BM were also present, primarily by skype, with the S-BM attending the meeting in Birmingham. The discussions were led by the researcher, and the feedback appeared open and frank. In addition, the sustainability team helped clarify questions that emerged. Having multiple participants engendered a dynamic and animated discussion with observations sparking comment and, in some cases, alternative perspectives and insightful disagreement.
Table 9: Category manager team interviews (D8)
The results from the category manager interviews and online survey responses (D3, D6) highlighted the important relationship between procurement teams and suppliers, especially preferred suppliers. Supply chain teams were looking to suppliers to support and even drive sustainability. Category managers were sector experts, with considerable experience in specific manufacturing areas rather than expertise in procurement. Their relationship with preferred suppliers seemed especially close and the final phase of the research was developed to understand the dynamics of the relationship between category teams and preferred suppliers. It also examined the approaches and understanding of these suppliers to sustainability across the construction network.
To explore the supply network from the supplier perspective (R1), and their view of the ability of the main contractor to manage sustainability in the supply network and of the
Carillion Team Code Role Length of Interview
Category
Management CM-1 Head of Category – MEP 2hrs
Category
Management CM-2 Category Manager – MEP (included in above)
Category Management CM-3 Head of Category – Prelims. 1.5 hours (joint interview with CM-4)
Category CM-4 Head of Category - 1.5 hours (joint
Category
Management CM-5
Head of Category - Building Envelope
2 hours (joint interview with CM-6)
Category
Management CM-6
Head of Category – Finishes (Construction)
2 hours (joint interview with CM-5)
93 final built asset (R2, R3) further semi-structured interviews were planned. As noted in section 3.4.1.2 this format allowed consistency between each interview but also provided the researcher with opportunity to probe and explore specific points more deeply. Each category manager was asked to identify several suppliers that they closely worked with, and whom they perceived to be sustainable. The researcher did not offer any guidance on how to define sustainability in this context. Based on their experience working on ‘Prelims’; products and services required prior to construction, CM-3 did not feel that any of his suppliers or their products would be relevant. Shortly after requesting supplier contact details the Grenfell Tower fire occurred and as a consequence CM-5 came pressure to respond to numerous technical questions. The researcher did not engage further with CM-5 for contacts and no envelope (glazing and cladding) suppliers were interviewed. The remaining category managers put forward several suppliers which are listed in Table 10. Interviews were carried out face to face, by skype or telephone, primarily with only the researcher present. However, two of the interviews were incorporated into part of a category manager review meeting, which provided an immensely rich insight into the relationship dynamics. Whilst these sessions appeared to be open and collaborative the researcher accepted that the presence of the category manager may have repressed some areas of discussion. This was not however, apparent from interview responses. Notes were taken during all interviews and were uploaded to MAXQDA and incorporated into the ongoing reviewing and refining of codes and theme development.
94
Table 10: Carillion Suppliers, Tier 1-3: Semi Structured Interviews (D8).
3.5.1.3. Online surveys (D3 & D6)
Whilst initial interviews had provided the perspective of several Carillion high and medium-level decision makers on Carillion’s role within the supply network they gave
Supplier Type Supplier
Code Interview Format
Length of Interview Tier 2/3: Manufacturer
- Ceramics SUP- 1
Face to face, in group including CM-2, SUP-1
Sustainability Manager, 2x SUP-1 Sales team 1.25 hours
SUP-2 Face to face, in group including CM-2, SUP-1
Sales team
SUP-2 Tel con researcher & SUP-2 Director of
Sustainability Tier 3: Manufacturer -
Plastics SUP-3
Face to Face – SUP 3 Head of Sustainability +
SUP-3 Key Account Manager 1.5 hours
SUP-4 Tel Con, Researcher, SUP-4 Sustainability
Manager and SUP-4 Key Account Manager 1 hour
SUP-4 Follow up tel Con, Researcher and SUP-4
Sustainability Manager 0.5 hour
Tier 2&3: Manufacturer
– Cables SUP-5
No interview possible – limited written
feedback to interview prompt questions N/A
Tier 2&3: Manufacturer
– Cables SUP-6
No interview possible – written feedback to
interview prompt questions N/A
SUP-7 Tel Con Researcher and SUP-7 Sustainability
Manager 1hour
SUP-7 Face to Face site visit: Researcher and SUP-7
Sustainability Manager 2 hours
Tier 1&2: Manufacturer
- Cement/Aggregates SUP-8
Face to Face Meeting: Researcher, UK Head of sustainability and Sustainable Construction Engineer
2 hours Tier 1&2&3:
Manufacturer -Paving and Stone
SUP-10 Tel con Researcher and SUP-10 Head of
Sustainability 1 hour
Tier 1&2&3: Manufacturer - Plasterboard
SUP-11 Tel con Researcher and SP-11 Head of
Sustainability 1 hour
Tier 1&2: Manufacturer
Assoc. -Steel SUP-12
Face to Face: Researcher. SUP-12 General
Manager and SUP-12 Technical Manager 2 hours
1 hour Tier 2&3: Manufacturer
- Ceramics
Tier 1&2: Wholesaler
Tier 1&2: Manufacturer - Cement/Aggregates
95 only limited insight into the ability of the whole procurement team to manage sustainability across the network (R2). Therefore, it was important to understand how these views translated across SC team operational levels. The Carillion Supply Chain ‘family’ comprised of more than 90 staff, and whilst hour long semi structured interviews would have offered enormously rich data this approach was not feasible. Carillion would not have approved such a high loss of staff working time or researcher travel costs. To reach this breadth of staff an online survey was created. Whilst several different online survey templates are available the researcher did not review these programmes for suitability. Instead, SurveyMonkey (SurveyMonkey, 2016), for which Carillion had an annual subscription was utilised. This was the preferred Carillion format for internal surveys and staff were sensitised to its operation and format.
The orientation interviews and further insight from academic research were used to shape the first draft survey (Appendix 3d: Survey 1 questions (D3)). Its aim was to explore the knowledge and approaches taken by members of the Carillion supply chain team to sustainable procurement. This included an understanding of the perceptions of SC team responsibilities, that of other relevant groups, and their perception of the effectiveness of sustainability delivery. The survey looked to further explore barriers to sustainable procurement, the issues they encountered, and how they felt this could be improved. Survey questions incorporated closed questions, where respondents were asked to select from a prepared list, interval-level questions and open text responses. In most questions, respondents were also offered the choice of ‘other’ or to provide a comment if they wished to offer a different perspective. Questions were prepared and reviewed by academic and industrial supervisors. Several senior members of the Carillion supply chain team tested the survey prior to publishing; reviewing use of language, structure and usability. Several changes to the language used and usability were suggested, and these were implemented. The survey was sent to participants by the Carillion Supply Chain Director, with an email prepared by the PhD researcher and was followed up a week later with a ‘chasing’ email. Ninety members of the supply chain team within the construction business unit were contacted and of these 81 responded but of these 11 only answered the first two ‘generic’ questions and were excluded from the results analysis. All respondees provided information on their job role and this was
96 used to generate a hierarchy of responsibility for decision making, with those most senior being classified as “high”, middle management roles as “medium” and more junior roles as “limited”. The numbers of respondents represented by each decision- making level were then defined (Table 11).
Table 11: Identifying a decision-making hierarchy based on respondent’s job role
*Note: Although the solicitor operated within a senior position in Carillion they were coded as a limited level decision maker in the context of sustainable procurement.
These classifications were reviewed and confirmed as a fair representation of role responsibly levels by Carillion’s Supply Chain Director. Data from the survey D3, including these decision-making levels, was prepared for analysis using the statistical analysis software SPSS. The University of Surrey provides students with access to this software package and the doctoral student underwent a short SPSS training session with a member of the CES teaching staff. Data was downloaded from Survey Monkey in an excel format and uploaded to SPSS version 24 (IBM Corp., 2016), and the initial analysis
Job role of respondents
Decision making level ‘High’ Decision making level ‘Medium’ Decision making level ‘Limited’
Supply Chain Director 1
Head of Supply Chain 9
Head of Category 1
Head of Health Safety and Sustainability 1
Finance 1
Category Manager 5
Supply Chain Analyst 1
Sustainability Manager 1
Supply Chain Manager 26
Senior Buyer 3 Area Buyer 1 Buyer 7 Admin/Supply Chain 1 Assistant Buyer 1 Graduate 4 In House solicitor 1* TOTALS 12 37 15
97 of Survey 1 was undertaken. Data for Survey 2 was available in 2017 by which time SPSS had been updated to version 25 (IBM Corp., 2017). This updated package was used for all final analysis. All text notes were input and coded in MAXQDA.
The SC-D permitted a second survey to be run in 2017 but requested a shortened format to minimise staff response time. In addition to the two standard role and team questions, three questions on responsibility, effectiveness and sources of knowledge were repeated to provide longitudinal data. Three new questions, based on topics arising from interviews were added; on modern slavery, the importance of FSC operational and the prevalence of sustainable building standards requests. One final, open ended question on air quality was included to support an issue identified by the Carillion corporate team (see Appendix: 3f Survey 2 questions (D6). Again, the industrial supervisor and several supply chain members reviewed and tested the survey.
The survey was sent out prior to the April 2017 Carillion supply chain conference, in the same online format as 2016, and with a covering email from the SC-D (Appendix: 3g Survey 2 covering email (D6). All supply chain team staff were invited to attend the conference, with the additional invitees from finance, sustainability, and legal teams. In addition, CCS Head of Design (D-HD) also attended. A follow up email was sent to all conference participants encouraging them to respond. A response rate of 72% yielded 68 completed surveys. Data, generated through survey monkey, was downloaded in excel and analysed using SPSS version 25. Where relevant, respondees answers were compared to the results of 2016 questions. However, this was undertaken with the knowledge that there was a small variation in respondees between the two surveys and, although offering an indication of change, the findings were not directly comparable. All written responses were uploaded to MAXQDA, coded and memos created. Decision making levels of staff responding were coded as per the categories defined in 2016 (see Table 11).
Only limited statistical analysis was undertaken on the survey data as the maximum sample size was 69 in 2016 and 72 in 2017 (as illustrated in Figure 20). For some questions only 33 respondents answered (Table 19). The response rate of 72% was close to, but below the point required to achieve a 95% confidence level.
98