Using case study research

According to Yin (1994), an important condition to choose between various research strategies is the type of research question posed. The ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions are more explanatory and are concerned with operational links, while the ‘what’ questions are either exploratory or about prevalence and are concerned with frequencies or incidence (Yin 1994). According to Meredith (1998), ‘what’ questions relate to identification, ‘how’ questions relate to explanation or prediction and ‘why’ questions relate to understanding the phenomenon. Case study research is specifically suited to answer ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions (Meredith 1998; Yin 1994). In studying formalization of the ordering process we are interested in analyzing formalization of the ordering process to explain how the ordering process can be formalized and to understand why (theoretical and practical considerations) the ordering process is formalized or why not.

Meredith (1998) gives a definition of case study based on a number of authors: “A case study typically uses multiple methods and tools for data collection from a number of entities by a direct observer(s) in a single, natural setting that considers temporal and contextual aspects of the contemporary phenomenon under study, but without experimental controls or manipulations”(Meredith 1998 p.442-443). By this definition the case study is limited to one setting. When more than one setting is studied, it is referred to as a multiple case study, according to Meredith (1998). In this thesis we use the term case study research (or case research) to refer to the research strategy of conducting one or more case studies.

Various academics argue that case study research is especially strong for the purpose of theory building (Voss, Tsikriktsis, and Frohlich 2002; Meredith 1998). The emphasis of case study research on understanding the phenomenon studied is focused on theory building (Meredith 1998). According to Wacker (1998), “Theories carefully outline the precise definitions in a specific domain to explain why and how the relationships are logically tied so that the theory gives specific predictions” (p.363-364). Theory is thus made up of four components, namely definitions of terms and variables, a domain (that is the exact setting or circumstances where the theory can be applied), a set of relationships and specific predictions. These components are also guiding the theory building, according to Wacker (1998). To be able to make meaningful sense of data

generated by an empirical research, it is necessary to use a theoretical framework. The purpose of a case study research used for theory building will be to identify key variables, linkages between variables and to identify ‘why’ these relationships exists (Handfield and Melnyk 1998). In other words, in designing a case study research we must address the development of a theoretical framework and conceptual model in which the key variables and relationships between these variables are presented (Miles and Huberman 1994). Yin (1994) also argues that case study research should rely on a preliminary theory and a clear set of propositions to guide the data collection (where to look for relevant evidence). This preliminary theory is then used as a template with which to compare the empirical results of the case study in order to generalize the case study results. Consequently, the basis for our research design is the conceptual model and proposed taxonomy (the preliminary theory), as discussed in Chapter 4.

The conceptual model and taxonomy of formalization of the ordering process can be considered as the first step in theory building, being the basic set of concepts to represent or describe formalization of the ordering process (see Meredith 1993). The next step is to develop a ‘conceptual framework’ by applying the conceptual model and taxonomy in our empirical research to explain and provide increased understanding of formalization of the ordering process. According to Meredith (1993), a conceptual framework is distinguished from a conceptual model by its explanatory power and may be considered as a pre-theory. When a framework satisfies the requirements of testability, relevance, and validity to a larger extent it becomes a theory.

These insights guided our research design. First of all, we studied the literature on the ordering process to define and conceptualize the relevant dimensions of the ordering process, as described in Chapter 2. Secondly, we studied the literature on formalization in order to operationalize formalization of the ordering process and to discuss considerations regarding formalization of the ordering process, as discussed in Chapter 3. On the basis of the constructs defined and theoretical insights of formalization of the ordering process we described the variables and assumed relationships between these variables. Then, we developed a conceptual model and consolidated the possible sets of relationships in a taxonomy of four main order processing patterns, as discussed in Chapter 4.

In building our conceptual model we also conducted an exploratory empirical research of two cases. The exploratory cases were helpful in testing the adequacy of the developed conceptual model, in building the research protocol and also in defining the selection criteria for the cases to be sampled (see 5.3). Based on the exploratory case studies we refined the conceptual model. The results of the exploratory cases were reported in a working paper (Welker and De Vries 2002) and discussed in various scientific presentations and meetings.

The next step in our research design was the actual conducting of the case research. We defined the selection criteria for the companies to be studied (Section 5.3) and we developed a research protocol to guide both the data collection (Section 5.4) and the data analysis (Section 5.5), in order to provide for validity and reliability of the case research.