The case study method and the casing strategy

The case study method (Eisenhardt, 1989; Ketokivi and Choi, 2014; Yin, 2014) was considered a suitable one to study the nature and dynamics of TSCs for several reasons. Firstly, case studies allow the deep examination of complex issues (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2014). This was very important to explore TSCs, given their inherent dynamism and complexity. Secondly, case studies are flexible methods that include various sources of data, which is also consistent with the Pragmatist position. Therefore, in this study, primary and secondary data were collected through interviews, observation, documents, reports, news, pictures, and videos. This allowed data triangulation (Yin, 2014). Thirdly, the case method allows the investigation of what, why, and how

38

questions with a relatively full understanding of the nature and complexity of the phenomenon (Meredith, 1998). This method was particularly suitable to answer the research questions tackled in this study. Finally, the case method provides the means to observe actions and decisions on the ground in their natural setting (Meredith, 1998). In order to identify the cases, the ‘casing’ strategy (Ragin, 1992) was adopted.

Ragin’s (1992) conception of casing involves a process of finding cases. From this perspective, cases are more outcomes of the research process than inputs. “Consider cases not as empirical units or theoretical categories, but as the products of basic research operations. Specifically, making something into a case or ‘casing’ it can bring operational closure to some problematic relationship between ideas and evidence, between theory and data. Casing viewed as a methodological step, can occur at any phase in the research process, but occurs especially at the beginning of a project and at the end” (Ragin, 1992, p. 218). According to Ragin (2009), theoretical assumptions do not provide clear guidance for the conduct of empirical research because “empirical evidence is infinite in its complexity, specificity, and contextuality. Casing focuses attention on specific aspects of that infinity” (Ragin, 2009, p. 523). For these and related reasons, cases should then be delimited or found in the course of research; they should not be specified beforehand. Further, he claims that once cases are found, they may be used to refine or even refute the initial theoretical assumptions.

These core ideas of the casing strategy are aligned with Pragmatism, given that “one of the simplest and most difficult tenets of Pragmatism is that understanding is based on consequences, not antecedents. One does not build an a priori logic, philosophical analysis with pre-set categories… Rather, the process is backwards to most modes of analysis” (Star, 2007, p. 86). Inspired by Ragin’s (1992, p. 221-224) illustration, the steps undertaken to operationalize the casing strategy in this study are described next:

39

(1) At the most general level, this study concerns temporariness in supply chains. Specifically, the interest lies on the understanding of how temporariness influences the nature and dynamics of supply chains (i.e. how they are deployed, develop, and operate over time) and the related role of IT. Therefore, the initial relevant set of observations is supply chains that present episodes of temporariness. This is the first casing.

(2) Given that the literature shows that episodes of temporariness are more likely to be found in the context of temporary tasks, Temporary Supply Chains are the second casing. These supply chains are deployed or emerge to accomplish specific tasks (events/purposes), after which they disband (Day et al., 2012). (3) Amongst TSCs, the decision was to focus on exemplar and polar types

(Pettigrew, 1990; Yin, 2014). Initially, the degree of foreseeability (the extent to which the task can be predicted in terms of what, when and where) seemed to be an important theoretical dimension that is likely to influence how TSCs develop and their management over time. Therefore, TSCs presenting different levels of foreseeability/predictability were the third casing.

(4) The next casing step consisted of selecting specific TSCs. For this, two exemplar and polar cases were selected with the help of O&SCM specialists: the TSC deployed to provide international aid during the 2014/2015 Ebola Response (unforeseeable) and the TSC deployed to provide transport services to Games’ clients during the 2016 Olympic Games (foreseeable). While it is known when and where the Olympic Games will take place, it is not possible to know in advance when and where pandemics, such as the Ebola, will happen. These TSCs were the fourth casings; they will be explored later.

40

(5) Like the previous casings, the next involved another narrowing of empirical focus. As the fourth casings were clarified, a fifth level came into play and forced the selection of the units of observation and specific empirical data. Therefore, the main supply chain elements – organisations and relationships – (Carter et al., 2015) as well as the focus on collecting data related to these elements (e.g. observation, interviews, and documents) were defined. Therefore, supply chain elements were the fifth casings.

(6) As a result of the data analysis, the final casings emerged. First, the development of TSCs in phases, influenced by the task specificities and enabled by transition processes is a casing that was explored in the TSCs Paper. This is a casing because it reveals important aspects of temporary tasks that influence the development and performance of TSCs and empirically shows how transitions take place. Second, the contingent use of formal as well as informal mechanisms to enable the execution of operational coordination in the Olympics is a casing that was explored in the Coordination Paper. This is a casing because it provides another way of seeing the traditional concept of operational coordination (Van de Ven et al., 1976). In temporary settings, coordination is contingent because of temporariness. In other words, formal mechanisms can be centrally implemented, and informal mechanisms spontaneously emerge, as a result of varying coordination challenges in different phases of the temporary organisation’s work. Third, the process level IT-business alignment in TOs as an adaptive and ongoing process that includes intermittent periods of alignment and misalignment is a casing that was explored in the IT Alignment Paper. This is a casing because it challenges the mainstream notion of process-level IT alignment as stable (Tallon, 2008) by introducing ‘temporariness’ into the discussion.

41

Temporariness matters because it recognizes the changing nature of processes, specifically in temporary settings and more generally in enduring ones. This, then, influences how processes and IT applications are aligned over time. The casings of specific instances may potentially allow generalization for other theoretically and/or empirically similar contexts. “Casing is a key part of the process of social enquiry. In each of these casings, ideas and evidence interact. In each casing the empirical world is more structured by theoretical ideas. And in each casing more and more of the empirical world is pruned for analysis” (Ragin, 1992, p. 224). Given that the casing that motivates a research project is always subject to refinement and revision (Ragin, 2009), as data was gathered and analysed in a continuous and iterative process, and the literature was reviewed, the various casings described were revisited in order to make the research findings theoretically meaningful and practically useful. Several aspects involved in the steps covered will be detailed in the following sub-sections.