Theoretical Development - Data Analysis and Interpretation

Data Analysis and Interpretation

5.2 Theoretical Development

In this theoretical development section the detailed components of the standard grounded theory visual model, also known as the axial coding paradigm, will be de-veloped. In figure 5.1 the final developed axial coding paradigm is illustrated. As summarised in section 1.5 the grounded theory procedure aim to identify the fol-lowing categories: causal conditions; the phenomenon; contextual and intervening conditions; strategies; and consequences. The origin of, and interrelationship be-tween, these categories are explained in sections 5.2.1 to 5.2.6.6. These categories visually describes the origin of axial coding paradigm.

Theoretical development data analysis is aimed at generating links between the developed categories. The constant comparative method is used to reduce the cate-gory or code structure developed during the early data analysis, seen in section 5.1.

In due course of this process, a few categories merged into one category and oth-ers are renamed. In addition to the constant comparative method, as well as asking questions during analysis, visualisation is used to draw logic diagrams which are de-rived from memo writing. In accordance to the systematic procedure of Corbin and Strauss (2008), visualisation allows the researcher to further depict relationships be-tween analytic concepts. This technique is found useful in the identification of clear links between categories. Linking between categories resulted in creating cumulative categories of context, which in turn, assist with finding the interrelationship amongst categories that support an emerging phenomenon.

At this stage, the data is analysed into a more abstract level for context, from which the selected core category, that represents the phenomenon, is investigated in detail. The core category is selected from the open and axial coding code structure (see table 5.1) based upon the following criteria: the category that seems central to the process being studied; the frequency of occurrence in the data; and its allowance for maximum variation in terms of dimensions, properties, conditions, strategies and consequences (Creswell, 2007). The category named Integrating AM with Total Quality Management (TQM) serves the purpose of the core category, hence, the core phenomenonwhich is renamed as Systems Integration, in this study. After this, other essential categories are analysed to uncover their relationships and to explore causal conditions (those factors that caused the phenomenon), specify strategies (actions taken in response to the phenomenon), identify contextual and intervening conditions (situational factors that influence strategies), and delineate consequences (outcomes from using the strategies) (Creswell, 2007) for this phenomenon. Any categories that did not serve any purpose or meaning to the phenomenon of emerging theory are eliminated. In the case of this study, the category Value Chain is eliminated.

In the interim, the initial twenty categories listed in table 5.1 have now been merged, renamed and reduced to six categories that relate to, support and explain the core phenomenon in terms of conditions, strategies and consequences. Its inter-relationships are transcribed into a axial coding paradigm, based upon the combined use of coding and visualisation. See figure 5.1 for the representation of the axial cod-ing paradigm which is modelled on the basis of the standard visual model developed

during the grounded theory methodology. Depicted in figure 5.1 is the development of the five emergent categories for this research. These categories are based upon data analysis and interpretation and are stipulated accordingly:

• causal conditions (i.e. asset problems, communication, people, leadership, the need for AM);

• the phenomenon (i.e. Systems Integration)

• contextual conditions developing the coping strategy for Systems Integration;

• intervening conditions influencing the coping strategy for Systems Integration (i.e. customer satisfaction, management systems, standard selection)

• coping strategy for implementation of Systems Integration (i.e. integrating on strategic level, methodology for Systems Integration); and

• consequences and integration implications (i.e. certification and auditing, per-son responsible, training obligatory, change management, management princi-ples, financial implications).

The above-listed categories represent the main themes that describe the holistic approach to integrating two management systems within South African food in-dustries. During the grounded theory analysis a gap, known as poor quality food products and customer dissatisfaction, within the food industry is presented, which is caused by the existence of asset problems, communication problems and poor people management or lack of top management commitment to asset care. These gaps can be closed when holistically considering all aspects supporting the core phenomenon, named Systems Integration. All in all, the latter could lead to high-quality food products and customer satisfaction as well (refer to figure 5.1).

The grounded theory analysis serves as an approach to develop a guideline to assist management to cope with achieving high-quality food products in order to survive the stringent demands. At this stage, the researcher ensued with selective coding in which the axial coding paradigm (figure 5.1) is used to assemble a story that describes the interrelationship of the above-listed categories which are illustrated in the axial coding paradigm (figure 5.1). The following sections discuss the relation-ships between the categories retrospectively, which in turn, describes the origin of figure 5.1. Take note that the theory developed in relevance to the homogeneous sample (i.e. in context to the quality and food perspectives) to which it is confirmed or dis-confirmed by the heterogeneous sample (i.e. in context to the maintenance perspectives). For this reason, the interrelationship between categories is based upon the opinions interpreted from both samples. While reading the following sections, refer to appendix B.5 for a dialogue between the researcher and corresponding par-ticipants.

Gap:

Poor Quality Food Products and Customer Dissatisfaction

Possible Outcomes:

High-Quality Food Product and Customer Satisfaction

Closing The Gap 5. Strategy (section 5.2.5)

Coping Strategy for Implementation of Systems Integration:

 Integrating on Strategic Level

 Method for Systems Integration 1. Casual conditions

(section 5.2.1)

 Asset Problems

 Communication

 People

 Leadership

 Need for AM

 Systems Integration 2. Phenomenon (section 5.2.2)

 Customer Satisfaction

 Management Systems and Standards

 Standard Selection 4. Intervening Conditions

(section 5.2.4)

AMS is used as a support system to TQMS.

3. Contextual Conditions (section 5.2.3)

6. Consequences and Integration Implications (section 5.2.6)

 Certification and Auditing

 Person Responsible

 Training Obligatory

 Change Management (Maturity Level and Competency

 Management Principles

 Financial Implications

Figure 5.1: Theoretical model (axial coding paradigm) for integrating AM with TQM

5.2.1 Causal Conditions

The researcher has defined and confirmed five causal condition factors of eight dis-tinct food organisations, namely: asset problems; communication; people; leadership;

and need for AM in the food industry. These factors of causal conditions emerged from the data, which led to the need for certain phenomenological experiences re-lated to the integrated approach. Within the succeeding sections (sections 5.2.1.1 to 5.2.1.5), an interpretation of data from senior managers’ experiences in the context of these factors is presented. This section ends with a summary (section 5.2.1.6).

5.2.1.1 Asset Problems

As previously discussed in section 2.2.2.1, assets are defined as anything that has potential or actual value to an organisation. Hence, Fred define “asset problems” as anything that causes a problem within the definition of assets. This is critical to consider when reading the discussion regarding “asset problems”.

In the context of AM, it is identified that different classes for asset types exists.

In section 2.2.2.1 it is mentioned that physical assets are the focal asset class of AM, however other asset interface classes (the non-physical assets such as human, information, financial and intangible assets) are also considered as important when holistically managing assets.

The food industry generally speaks of “machines”, “equipment” and “infrastruc-ture” as assets that add value to the organisation (Laura, Renee, Alec, Ian, Sam, Ella: in-depth interview). The latter represent physical assets. Interestingly, Renee argued that assets could be anything that has a direct influence on the quality and food safety of the product, she said:

“I would say that any equipment that has physical contact with the product which could influence the quality and food safety of it. That ‘equipment’

that I’m referring to also includes the design, maintenance, the effective-ness and adaptability of it” (Renee: in-depth interview).

Thus, Renee clearly acknowledge that assets significantly correlates with achiev-ing high-quality and food safe products. This is a very important connection to make between AM and quality and food safety performance. It has been previously specu-lated that if assets are managed properly (see section 1.1), high-quality performance will be yielded. Renee, therefore, confirms that this speculation is true and deserves valuable exploration.

Apart from the physical assets, all participants did acknowledge that “people is an important asset” which also brings value to the organisation (Laura, Garry, Renee, Alec, Ian, Sam, Ella: in-depth interview). The human asset class within the food industry is very often “overlooked” (Alec: in-depth interview). Alec observes that:

“... but I would also want to include another asset, which is people, this is sometimes overlooked. People are key to the success of a business which

also is an asset. People is the biggest asset that one can possess in life, you need to involve people in our systems. Because people are those who run and design the systems and the assets...People is another important asset since people entails sharing the right information ” (Alec: in-depth interview).

Contributing to Alec’s remark on people “sharing the right information”, Garry supported his statement and explained that the human asset class, together with the other asset classes, is important to the food industry:

“The elements of human assets are included or are necessary in the func-tioning of other standards, so, quite often companies can fail in certain aspect of communicating the message of what are our targets this year.

Your whole intellectual properties things are those intangibles which in some companies have very high values of goodwill write downs. You know, what isn’t an asset at the end of the day? An asset can be anything that adds value to an organisation. It’s not just machines and equipment. For instance, in corporates it is very different the control of the intangibles”

(Garry: in-depth interview).

Alec further ranks the asset classes in descending order of importance:

“Definitely people. That would be my number one asset. Because people do the stuff physically, you can’t achieve anything without people. People need to work towards one shared vision, work together as a team. Then I would say Information is the second important asset. The correct in-formation is critical, you need inin-formation; inin-formation is another key asset. Without knowledge you will not go far . Information and knowl-edge is critical for operating acquiring the correct physical assets (which are my third important asset). Because without the right knowledge, you will not be able to purchase or acquire the correct equipment, so you have to employ the correct people with the knowledge of equipment and suppli-ers. These three I would suggests is important, all the other things will fall into place within these three. Money is important yes, but it is not the solution to everything” (Alec: in-depth interview).

Similar experiences are echoed from the other participants. Particularly, Sam confirmed that the two most relevant assets to the food industry is the physical as-sets and the human asas-sets. It is however, the responsibility of the human asas-sets to operate, maintain and sustain the physical assets. At this stage, it is clear that the human aspects of assets are overlooked and neglected within the food industry. Ac-cordingly, the category named People is discussed in greater detail in section 5.2.1.3.

Assets (whether human or physical) tend to cause serious final product implica-tions within the food industry, due to negligence and improper management of assets (Laura, Garry, Renee, Ian, Alec and Sam: in-depth interview). All participants argue that machine eruptions and/or failures directly influence the final product specifica-tions in terms of product quality and food safety. Laura explained the latter with a typical example that occasionally occurs when a machine is not properly managed:

“The machine fills pouches with the product from which a cap shoot brings down caps and places in on the pouch which are then tightly sealed with the capper machine. But that cap shoot is currently ineffective since it cannot properly place the caps on the pouches. It does not work accurately.

Now, instead of the machine operating at a speed of 12, we assigned two people to the machine to manually place the caps on the pouches which immediately reduces the speed of the machine to 9. Instead of producing 21000 pouches per shift of 8 hours, we only produces 14000 pouches in 8 hours. Thus, we are currently only 66% efficient. So, if we could have properly maintained that piece of equipment or reacted to the problem sooner...just imagine what we could have saved over three months. Remember, we are now increasing the expenses of the product with a third of its usual price because we are now only two thirds efficient – this decreases our profit with 30%. You could now just imagine, if you refer to food safety, how this problem of poor capping will influence the food safety of the product, the hygiene of it. Because it is operating at a slower speed, it causes fluctuations in temperature since it is not performing spot on at 80 degrees every time. Now you have to remember, the product will start to blow-up because of this. This is now a very good example for me of a machine that could have been maintained better, because obviously in influences both the quality and safety of the food product. Also, it prevents you from achieving your bottom-line” (Laura:

in-depth interview).

Laura clearly faces an issue of poor management of assets. It appeared that she is frustrated with this type of problem and also emphasise that poor management of assets results in lack of efficiency because food organisations try to find the easy way out of solving problems instead of facing the problem directly. In frustration, Laura argues that these types of problems result in serious consequences and therefore in-fluence the food quality and food safety of the product. In turn, product defects occur.

In response to this, Laura, alongside Garry and Renee, suggests that these types of problems could have been prevented if AM was practised. Laura specifically said that “if that principle” (referring to proper management of assets) “could have been understood amongst the production manager and his supervisors” this problem would not have occurred. This is one of the many reasons why AM should be investigated within the food industry. Aside from only focussing on product deviations and food safety issues, this type of problem also results in throughput failures and induced money losses. In these types of situations, it is “better to not run production be-cause of the increased product costs” since the organisation is not yielding profit any longer (Laura: in-depth interview). In accordance to the literature analysis (see sec-tions 2.3.2 and 2.3.3), profit is known as one of the objectives of AM. As such, AM strives to optimise processes to deliver improved Return on Assets (ROA) and prof-itability. Thus, it is appropriate for, and expected of, Laura to emphasise her belief of acknowledging AM as important. As a final remark to this example, it is criti-cal for equipment to run efficiently, since temperature fluctuations and speed cause

serious implications toward the final product in context to its quality and food safety.

More specifically, Renee advocates that due to temperature fluctuations, “the colour and taste of the product will deviate from batch to batch” (Renee: in-depth interview). She openly admits that the food industry “do not operate the machines efficiently” since they “operate the machine overtime and over its determined ca-pacity”. This led to the conclusion that those machines “do not add value” to the production process any longer since it is now “causing quality problems” (Renee: in-depth interview). In turn, the food safety of the final product will be influenced and defects occur. This concern that is shared among all participants and should, there-fore, be addressed. The food industry in its entirety seems to lack proper guidance for the proper management of their assets; however some “individual companies will be better”at managing their assets than others (Garry: follow-up in-depth interview).

This is one of the many reasons for participants’ logical thinking of incorporating AM within their quality systems, which justifies the problem statement as discussed in section 1.2.

It occurs to the researcher that food organisations typically hold onto old and overworked physical assets. In the light of this topic, Renee expressed her frustra-tion towards the incapability of the food industry for capital investments or desire for changes in plant designs to better production. She explains, in agreement with what Laura has also acknowledged, that the food industry’s incapability of investing in new assets leads to increased losses of money in the long-term (Renee and Laura:

in-depth interview).

Another problem of equal importance is the lack of proper root cause analysis and inspections prior to production. Garry observes that:

“If you look at food manufacturing, we talk about it on a daily basis and sometimes in companies they don’t drill down far enough into the root cause of failures. From my own experience, if you do that, quite often you’re having this link with your plant equipment and your assets that are used to manufacture your product until you’re finding something that you haven’t maintained properly or you have forgotten about or you should have put it into place. So perhaps, an AMS will assist in helping to im-prove those situations. In the end of the day if your assets failing because you are not maintaining it then its reducing the value, maybe reducing the cycle life of the asset unnecessarily ” (Garry: in-depth interview).

Alec’s opinion regarding asset problems is similar to the above statement made by Garry. He specifically points out that due to the negligence or improper main-tenance of assets, the asset will over time lose its effectiveness, especially if it is operated post its indented life cycle (Renee, Alec, Garry: in-depth interview). Alec refers to this problem as “catastrophic” since it will lead to “a lot of money loss”, confirming observations made by both Laura and Renee. Not only will money be lost, it will ultimately lead to the loss of business caused by customer dissatisfac-tion. Additionally, both Jim and Fred argue that the negligence of assets, especially

physical assets, lead to quality inconsistency which causes consumer complaints and unsatisfied customers (Jim and Fred: in-depth confirmation interview). Alec also made another important comment which should not be ignored; he says that:

“A damaged brand is not manageable, you can’t restore that brand. A damaged brand occurs due to production hiccups or errors or equipment failures. This could damage the companies’ reputation. This would cause consumers to create a stigma against your product. It is very difficult to repair that damaged brand and lost relationship (because you are not in direct contact with the client, but your product is)...No food manu-facturing company wants to be associated with equipment that operates ineffectively or those who are falling apart that could lead to serious food poisoning that could lead to illnesses or causes of death. No food

In document A grounded theory based approach for integrating asset management with total quality management in South african food industries (Page 137-200)