INTRODUCCIÓN

Based on the case study selection criteria, the researcher selected two case study organisations for this research, among which one case study i.e. DQA gold winner in service sector and the other being DQA award winner in manufacturing sector. Therefore, a total of

119

two cases study were carried out to investigate the factors affecting implementation of quality excellence framework at a senior management level. Moreover both the organisations were based in Dubai, therefore accessibility was supportive to conduct interviews, attend meetings and dialogues, and do the fieldwork observations. According to Ghauri and Gronhaug (2005, p. 118), “The time available for the study, financial resources for travelling and other practical issues are of great importance”. Table 4.9 presents comparison for selection of case study organisation based on the case study selection criteria. SN Case Study Selection Criteria CSO / A (Machinery Division- Kanoo Group) CSO / B (Wild Wadi Water Park- Jumeirah Group) Remarks

1 Choose one case study organisation each from service and manufacturing sectors Manufacturing - No. of Personnel: 350 - No overseas Operations for the Machinery Division. Service - Number of personnel: 750 - No overseas operations for the Wild Wadi Water Park. - CSO / B was the most recent DQA Gold winner at the time of initiation of the research. - Senior management of both Case Study organisations supported the research 2 Choose one gold

and one award winner organisation Award Winner Gold Winner 3 Senior management willing to support the research by providing

interviews and other relevant data CEO Accepted and advised Business Excellence Department GM Accepted and NDA signed

120 4.5 Delimitations of the Study

There were number of research delimitations which should be kept in mind while studying the factors affecting at a senior management level during quality excellence framework (DQA) implementation. These were as follows:

i- Firstly, this subject was approached mainly from the understanding of factors affecting at a senior management level. Other factors which might be present at middle management and junior staff level were not taken into account of this study.

ii- Secondly, keeping in view the research aim of the study, the focus was on investigating factors affecting implementation of quality excellence framework. Therefore, external enablers and barriers were not covered as part of this study.

iii- Thirdly, the present research was conducted in Dubai context only; therefore there might be other factors even at a senior management level in organisations of other countries due to local organisational environment and culture, political scenarios, technological advancement and variation, legal and market issues and so were beyond the scope of this study.

iv- Fourthly, the qualitative research was carried out to gain in-depth understanding of the phenomenon instead of quantitative research as most of the studies available related to this topic in literature were qualitative in nature. The present study was no exception.

v- Finally, the sample size of two case studies might not appear appropriate to some researchers, particularly the statisticians, but it sufficed for the purpose this research was made. References from various authors / researchers were provided in this report justifying the selection of sample size in view of case study methodology.

121 4.6 Data Collection Method

Figure 4.3 reflects data collection schematic steps performed for this research.

Figure-4.3: Data Collection Schematic Flow (Produced for this thesis) Setting Case Study Selection Criteria

Contacted DQA Secretariat to explain the research / Discussed about the selection of case study organisations based on literature review (Opinion getting)

Selected Case Study Organisations based on pre-set criteria

Contacted with the Quality / Business Excellence department of the CSOs Had first meeting with the Quality departments of the CSOs for research explanation (Shared interview information sheet and informed consent form)

Carried out final meeting with senior management for interviews approval Ethical Considerations / Sign Non-Disclosure Agreement with the CSOs

Finalisation of Sampling Strategy

Conducted Pilot Study Interviews / Note Taking

Interview Questions Refinement based on the Pilot Study Interviews (4 questions revised) Conducted Main Interviews (Real Case Study) / Documentation and Archival

Records review / Observations

Final meeting with the Quality / BE departments for thank them and to formally close data collection stage

Typed responses and sent them for validation Received responses after validation

Contacted with the Quality / Business Excellence department of the CSOs Developed Draft Interview Transcript

122

Data may be collected from primary or secondary sources. Denscombe (2007), Easterby- Smith, (2002) and Yin (2011) mentioned different data collection techniques. Those data collection techniques could be summarized as: “Documentation, Archival records, Interviews, Direct observation, Participant-observation, Physical artefact, Diaries, Focus group, simulation, and Questionnaire”. Yin (2011) further highlighted that no single source has a complete advantage over the others; while the use of multiple sources of evidences can help in clarifying the real meaning of the phenomenon being studied.

Yin (2009, p.102) proposed six major sources of evidence in doing case study: documentations, archival records, interviews, direct observation, participant-observation and physical artefacts. Each source has its own strengths and weaknesses as illustrated in the table 4.10 below:

Sources of Evidence

Strengths Weaknesses Documentations  stable-can be reviewed

repeatedly

 unobtrusive-not created as a result of the case study  exact-contains exact names, references, and details of an event  broad coverage-long span of time, many events, and many settings

 Retrieve-ability- can be low

 biased selectivity, if collection is incomplete  reporting bias-reflects (unknown) bias of author  access-may be deliberately blocked

Archival Records  (Same as above for documentation)

 precise and quantitative

 (Same as above for documentation)

 accessibility due to privacy reasons

Interviews  targeted-focuses directly on case study topic  insightful-provides perceived causal inferences

 bias due to poorly constructed questions  response bias  inaccuracies due to poor recall

 reflexivity-

123

interviewer wants to hear Direct Observations  reality-covers events in real time  contextual-covers context of event  time-consuming  selectivity-unless broad coverage  reflexivity-event may proceed differently because it is being observed  cost-hours needed by human observers Participant- Observation

 (Same as above for direct observations)  insightful into

interpersonal behaviour and motives

 (Same as above for direct observations)  bias due to investigator’s

manipulation of events Physical Artefacts  insightful into cultural

features

 insightful into technical operations

 selectivity  availability

Table 4.10: Six Sources of Evidence: Strengths and Weaknesses Source: Yin (2009, p.102)

Keeping in view the aim and objectives of this research, the author conducted one-on-one semi-structured open ended interviews as the main method for data collection. To support and compliment main method, other sources of data collection i.e. documentation, archival records, direct observation were also used so that the collected data could be triangulated and validated. Other sources were considered to be directly related to sociological investigation, and therefore were not used in this research. Various authors advocated use of semi-structured interviews as preferred data collection method within the context of a qualitative case study research not only to reveal and understand the ‘what’ and ‘how’, but also to place more emphasis on explaining ‘why’ (Grix, 2004; Jankowicz, 2000; Saunders et al., 2009).

124

To increase the data reliability and validity with the aim to gain in-depth knowledge of the phenomenon, the researcher performed the followings:

1) Used multiple sources of evidence to triangulate the data;

2) Preparedness for semi-structured interview, selection of related topics, usage of open ended questioning technique, recording information;

3) Created a case study database including chain of evidence (such as case study data base / notes, topics / questions, documents) for later access, review, perusal and report;

Above techniques have been emphasized by number of researchers to increase data reliability and validity including Collis and Hussey, 2009; Saunders et al., 2009; Robson, 2002; Yin, 2009 and 2011.