The processes of the withincase analysis discussed above were applied to the transcripts of the 10 cases in this study. This allowed us to capture a framework of factors from each case.
Although factors captured from all of the cases are documented in Appendix C – WithinCase Analysis, a framework of factors for each case is discussed in this section. This allows us to highlight the case study findings from each case organisation, thus presenting a summary of findings from the withincase analysis for each of the 10 cases in this study.
The first case is C01. Table 5.1 shows that this case was a London based OSS consulting firm which used an OSSonly software platform. The interview recording with the participant in this case was transcribed (see Appendix B.1 – Transcript of Case C01). The data collected from this case were very useful as a sample that represents a diverse use of OSS by an IT consultant in a major city such as London.
The withincase analysis in this case led to the identification of various factors (see Appendix C.1 – Data Analysis of Case C01) which are summarised as follows. The relative advantage factors identified were: license costsaving; licenseaudit costsaving; extend use of hardware;
maintenance cost; extensibility; and reliability. The complexity factors identified were: lack of drivers and lack of applications. The compatibility factors identified were: server platform;
interoperability; functionality; and supports legacyhardware. The peer influences factors identified were: support community; growing OSScommunity; lack of government support;
and software monopoly. The self efficacy factors identified were: core ITskills; resistance to change; lack of awareness; and management support. Finally, the resource facilitating
Chapter 5: Data Analysis 110
condition factor identified was capital investment. No superior influences and technology facilitating conditions factors were identified in case C01.
The second case is C02. Table 5.1 shows that this case was an East Sussex based consultancy firm which used a mixed software platform. The interview recording with the participant in this case was transcribed (see Appendix B.2 – Transcript of Case C02). The data collected from this case were very useful as a sample that represents a mixed software environment of OSS and nonOSS platforms for the firm's diverse IT applications, including web database software and embedded systems development and consulting.
The withincase analysis in this case led to the identification of various factors (see Appendix C.2 – Data Analysis of Case C02) which are summarised as follows. The relative advantage factors identified were license costsaving, environmental cost, energy cost, costs of complex ITneeds, ease of use, positive image, flexible support, ease of modification, total cost of ownership, and extensibility. The complexity factors identified were lower quality of interfaces, poor interoperability, scalability, desktop maturity, lack of drivers, and lack of applications. The compatibility factors identified were multiplatform applications, functionality, and supports legacyhardware. The peer influences factors identified were socialinteraction issues, lack of government support, software monopoly, and loss of OSS
developers. Finally, the self efficacy factors identified were innovativeness, IT support, and management support. No superior influences, resource facilitating conditions and technology facilitating conditions factors were identified in case C02.
The third case is C03. Table 5.1 shows that this case was an OSS support services, consultation and configuration firm based in Manchester. The interview recording with the participant in this case was transcribed (see Appendix B.3 – Transcript of Case C03). The data collected from this case were very useful as a sample that represents a mixed software and hardware computing environment of OSS and nonOSS platforms. These environments allowed the staff to use flexible applications and servers for their office ITneeds such as Internet communication, document processing and web development, even using flexible choice of underlying computing hardware, including Macs and commodity PC hardware.
The withincase analysis in this case led to the identification of various factors (see Appendix C.3 – Data Analysis of Case C03) which are summarised as follows. The relative advantage factors that were identified are licenseaudit costsaving, extensibility, reliability, server hardware support, training aid, diverse documentation, and flexible support. The complexity
K. Mijinyawa
Chapter 5: Data Analysis 111
factor identified is lack of drivers. The compatibility factors identified were functionality and software maturity. The peer influences factor identified was lack of government support. The superior influences factors identified were print media and Web media. The self efficacy factors identified were: lack of awareness; core ITskills; and resistance to change. The resource facilitation condition factor identified was capital investment. Finally, the technology facilitation condition factors identified were hardwareinfrastructure and Internet connectivity.
The fourth case is Case 04. Table 5.1 shows that this case was a software development firm based in Wakefield. The interview recording with the participant in this case was transcribed (see Appendix B.4 – Transcript of Case C04). The data collected from this case were very useful as a sample that can support information gathered from firms that use only OSS platforms. This firm used an OSSonly platform for its business functions which centred around web and database systems development.
The withincase analysis in this case led to the identification of various factors (see Appendix C.4 – Data Analysis of Case C04) which are summarised as follows. The relative advantage factors that were identified are license costsaving, security, ease of maintenance, ease of use, flexible ITsolutions, flexible support, and trialability. The compatibility factors identified were functionality, server platform, and hardware compatibility. The peer influences factor identified is support community. Finally, the self efficacy factors identified were core ITskills, management support, and IT support. No complexity, superior influences, resource facilitating conditions and technology facilitating conditions factors were identified in case C04.
The fifth case is C05. Table 5.1 shows that this case was a Cambridge based firm that specialised in the development of software for embedded systems and in doing so, this firm used OSSonly platform. The interview recording with the participant in this case was transcribed (see Appendix B.5 – Transcript of Case C05). The data collected from this case were very useful as a sample that showed the diverse application of OSS not just as an office software, but, also as a software platform that is widely recognised in the embedded systems industry.
The withincase analysis in this case led to the identification of various factors (see Appendix C.5 – Data Analysis of Case C05) which are summarised as follows. The relative advantage factors identified were license costsaving, ease of maintenance, flexible support, extensibility, and trialability. The compatibility factors identified were hardware compatibility and
Chapter 5: Data Analysis 112
functionality. The peer influences factors identified were support community and national IT
security. The superior influences factor identified was Web media. The self efficacy factors identified were: IT support, core ITskills, lack of skilled ITstaff, and innovativeness. The resource facilitation condition factor identified was capital investment. Finally, the technology facilitation condition factor identified was Internet connectivity. No complexity and technology facilitating conditions factor were identified in case C05.
The sixth case is C06. Table 5.1 shows that this case was a firm that used OSSonly platform to provide OSS consultancy and services in North Yorkshire. The interview recording with the participant in this case was transcribed (see Appendix B.6 – Transcript of Case C06). The data collected from this case were very useful as a sample that can support information gathered from other firms that use only OSS platforms but also present a geographical diversity to the use of OSS among the IT SMEs.
The withincase analysis in this case led to the identification of various factors (see Appendix C.6 – Data Analysis of Case C06) which are summarised as follows. The relative advantage factors identified were flexible support, no license cost, reliability, and extend use of hardware. The complexity factors identified were lack of documentation and lack of drivers.
The compatibility factor identified was hardware compatibility. The peer influences factors identified were support community and government ITpolicies. The superior influences factor identified was Web media. Finally, the self efficacy factors identified were innovativeness and core ITskills. No superior influences, resource facilitating conditions and technology facilitating conditions factors were identified in case C06.
The seventh case is C07. Table 5.1 shows that this case was a Microsoft partner company that is based in Uxbridge. This firm used nonOSS platform and therefore is an interesting variation from all other cases in this study. The interview recording with the participant in this case was transcribed (see Appendix B.7 – Transcript of Case C07). The data collected from this case were very useful as a sample that allowed us to see some difference in factors related to OSS and nonOSS adoption by the IT SMEs. However, this case also allowed us to see some factors that were common among IT SMEs that used OSS or nonOSS platforms.
Thus, this case provided the opportunity to begin to identify some theoretically generalisable factors influencing the adoption of OSS by IT SMEs.
The withincase analysis in this case led to the identification of various factors (see Appendix C.7 – Data Analysis of Case C07) which are summarised as follows. The relative advantage
K. Mijinyawa
Chapter 5: Data Analysis 113
factors identified were limited costsaving, limited freesupport, reliability, flexible ITchoice, and basic modifications. The complexity factors identified were software defect and legal restrictions. The compatibility factors identified was hardware compatibility. The peer influences factor identified was good vendorrelationship. The superior influences factor identified was Web media. The self efficacy factors identified were core ITskills and IT support. The resource facilitation condition factor identified was capital investment. Finally, the technology facilitation condition factor identified was IT hardware.
The eighth case is C08. Table 5.1 shows that this case was an IT consulting, support services and development firm that is based in Manchester. The interview recording with the participant in this case was transcribed (see Appendix B.8 – Transcript of Case C08). The data collected from this case were very useful as a sample case which not only used an OSSonly platform but also claimed to have made software contributions back to the OSS community.
This makes this case a rare example of contributing SMEs. However, this can be expected from the variety of advanced programming OSS packages which they used for their business.
The withincase analysis in this case led to the identification of various factors (see Appendix C.8 – Data Analysis of Case C08) which are summarised as follows. The relative advantage factors identified were license costsaving, extensibility, and reliability. The complexity factors identified were complex to deploy and lack of drivers. The compatibility factors identified were hardware compatibility and server platform. The peer influences factor identified was government ITpolicies. The self efficacy factors identified were core ITskills, resistance to change, IT support, and management support. The resource facilitation condition factor identified was capital investment. Finally, the technology facilitation condition factor identified was Ethernet technologies. No superior influences factor were identified in case C08.
The ninth case is C09. Table 5.1 shows that this case was a software systems development and support firm based in Buckinghamshire. The interview recording with the participant in this case was transcribed (see Appendix B.9 – Transcript of Case C09). The data collected from this case were very useful as a sample that can support information gathered from firms that used a mixed software platform.
The withincase analysis in this case led to the identification of various factors (see Appendix C.9 – Data Analysis of Case C09) which are summarised as follows. The relative advantage factors identified were licenseaudit costsaving, extensibility, flexible support, backward
Chapter 5: Data Analysis 114
compatibility, flexible ITsolutions; and trialability. The complexity factors identified were lack of localsupport and lack of drivers. The compatibility factors identified were functionality, standard userinterface, hardware compatibility, and multiplatform applications. The peer influences factors identified were support community, social interaction issues, multi
language support, and lack of government support. The superior influences factor identified was Web media. The self efficacy factors identified were core ITskills, IT support, management support, and innovativeness. The resource facilitation condition factor identified is capital investment. Finally, the technology facilitation condition factor identified was Internet connectivity.
The tenth case is C10. Table 5.1 shows that this case was a web services and software development firm based in Scotland. The interview recording with the participant in this case was transcribed (see Appendix B.10 – Transcript of Case C10). The data collected from this case were very useful as a sample that provided geographical diversity to the selection of IT SMEs in this study and also support information gathered from firms that used a mixed software platform.
The withincase analysis in this case led to the identification of various factors (see Appendix C.10 – Data Analysis of Case C10) which are summarised as follows. The relative advantage factors identified were license costsaving, security, extensibility, independent verification, and flexible support. The compatibility factors identified were functionality and supports legacy
hardware. The peer influences factors identified were peer initiation and lack of government support. The superior influences factor identified were print media and Web media. The self efficacy factor identified was lack of awareness. Finally, the technology facilitation condition factor identified was Internet connectivity. No complexity and resource facilitating conditions factor were identified in case C10.
Following the presentation of factors identified in each case organisation, the next stage of the data analysis explores the logical replication (Creswell et al. 2007; Tellis 1997; Yin 1994) of factors across all cases. This leads to the triangulation of sources of evidence and determines the extent of analytical generalisability of the factors identified in the withincase analysis in this study.
K. Mijinyawa
Chapter 5: Data Analysis 115