Mecanisme de reparació de talls a la doble cadena (DSB)

According to Yin (2003, p. 21) there are five components of a research design:

1. “a study's questions; 2. its propositions, if any; 3. its unit(s) of analysis;

4. the logic linking the data to the propositions; and 5. the criteria for interpreting the findings”

1. The study’s questions

As explained earlier in this chapter the questions of the research, which were presented in section 1.6 of this report, led to the selection of the case research strategy to meet the aim and objectives of this research.

2. The study’s propositions

According to (Yin 2003, p. 23) proposition “directs attention to something

that should be examined within the scope of the study”. In this study the propositions derive from the framework of successfully implementing CAF as presented earlier in chapter 2, which was created having in mind the relevant literature. In other words, the propositions of this study are, the issues derived

from the literature, which issues are presented in the theoretical framework, which framework will be used to design the research tools, which will be applied to gather primary data from the case studies.

These propositions are:

For the CAF to have been successfully implemented in Greek Local Authorities the following propositions are likely to have occurred:

Proposition 1: The decision for implementing CAF would have taken into account the organization’s culture, i.e. some or all of the following would have been made:

• An assessment of the current quality culture of the organization would have been carried out

• A decision which BEM will be used by considering CAF alternatives, and CAF benefits would have been made

• A decision to implement CAF would have been made

• A decision to implement CAF either in the entire organization or in a department would have been made

• A decision whether to do a “pilot” implementation or not would have been made

• A selection on the approach to SA would have been made

Proposition 2: Clear motive(s) for implementing CAF would have been established at an early stage, i.e.

• An identification for the reasons for using CAF would have been made, including both:

o internal reasons, and o external reasons

Proposition 3: Senior management and political commitment for implementing CAF would have been gained, by having done some or all of the following:

• Commitment would have been stimulated through communication

• A decision for implementing CAF would have been made, including some of the following:

o Clarification that the results will be respected

o Clarification that the improvement actions will be followed o Allocation of the resources needed for the project

o A guarantee that the entire process will be dealt with in an open- minded way by all parties

• Training would have occurred, by having done some of the following: o The model would have been explained

o TQM concepts would have been explained

• The SA report would have been officially accepted both by the management team and the political leadership

• The improvement action plan would have been officially accepted both by the management team and the political leadership

Proposition 4: Planning and organizing of the entire process would have occurred, by having done some or all of the following:

• A project leader would have been appointed

• The entire process would have been planned

• Resources for the SA would have been allocated

• A decision whether to score or not would have been made

• The number of the SA team(s) would have been decided

• SA team(s) would have been created

• The chair of the SA team(s) would have been chosen

• Responsibilities to each member of the SA team(s) would have been assigned

• Preparation of the SA team(s) would have been made by having done some or all of the following:

o the model would have been explained

o the purposes and process of the SA would have been analyzed o the key stakeholders, the products and services, and the key

processes would have been defined

• The member of the SA team(s) would have been trained, i.e.: o A training plan would have been established and implemented

• The improvement actions would have been prioritized

• A responsible person for each improvement action would have been appointed

• A structured action plan for the selected improvement actions would have been made

Proposition 5: Communication during the different phases of the process would have occurred, by having done some or all of the following:

• This communication plan would have been implemented during the different phases of the process, i.e.:

o Communication would have been occurred during the different phases among all the stakeholders (whole staff, management team, existing improvement team, political authority, customers/citizens/users, strategic partners, society in general)

• Involvement in the SA of the senior managers and the employees would have been stimulated

• The SA report would have been communicated to all parties

• All the relevant stakeholders would have been informed about the improvement plan (the areas in which action is most needed, the improvement actions planned)

Proposition 6: Employees’ commitment and involvement for

implementing CAF would have been gained, by having done some or all of the following:

• Involvement would have been stimulated through communication

• Training would have occurred, i.e.:

o The model would have been explained o TQM concepts would have been explained

o Ownership and commitment would have been promoted

• Involvement in the implementation of the different improvement actions would have been ensured

Proposition 7: Integration of the use of the CAF into the organization and its processes would have taken place in various ways, by having done some or all of the following:

• Alignment of the CAF with the other organizational systems would have taken place

• The action plan of the improvement actions would have been integrated in the normal strategic planning process

• Clear ownership of the improvement program and the projects would have been defined

Proposition 8: Momentum of the implementation would have been maintained through the entire process, by having done some or all of the following:

• Planning and Project progress monitoring would have been done

• The improvement plan would have been implemented and monitored, i.e.:

o A consistent approach for monitoring and assessing the improvement actions would have been defined

o The implementation of the improvement actions would have been monitored on a regular basis

• Senior management commitment and involvement would have been demonstrated

• Employees’ commitment and involvement would have been demonstrated

• Communication during the entire process would have taken place

• Education and training about CAF would have been made

• The entire process would have been reviewed and evaluated. i.e.: o An evaluation about whether the changes had a positive effect or not

would have been made

o An evaluation about whether the improvement plan had given the expected results or not, and the expected value would have been made

o An evaluation about whether the reasons for using CAF were met or not would have been made

o A consideration about the choices made during the entire process would have been made

Proposition 9: The pace of the implementation process would have been appropriate according to the organization's culture, i.e.:

• The pace would have been fast enough in order to maintain the momentum

• The pace would have been appropriate in order to deal with any resistance to change

Proposition 10: The implementation of CAF would not have been affected by the unstable macro-environment, i.e some or all of the following would not have affected the process of implementing CAF:

• Political factors

• Social factors • Technological factors • Environmental factors • Legal factors 3. Unit of Analysis

The unit of analysis defines what the “case” is. As Yin (2003, p.23) states

“the definition of the unit of analysis is related to the way the initial research question is defined”. Hence having in mind, the key research question of this study (i.e. how external macro-environmental factors affect CAF’s successful implementation?), the case of this research is defined as the process of implementing CAF. Hence in this study the unit of analysis is the event of implementing CAF.

Additionally, as Yin (2003) points out, it is crucial that one determine “who” is involved in an event, alongside with the time of the event. For this research the “who”, is defined as the Local Authority - in the case that the entire organization has implemented CAF, or one specific department of the Local Authority - in the case that only one department has implemented CAF. Additionally, at a “personal” level the meaning of “who is involved”, had been determined with the Mayor or General Secretary in the case study organizations prior to the site visit for the interviews. In each case only a handful of people had a sufficient knowledge of the implementation process and were able to provide an insight into either the whole implementation process or significant portions of it. The selection to the interviewees is discussed later in this chapter (3.9.1.1.2). Finally, for the issue of determining the time of the event, the beginning of the event is the point of time that the implementation of CAF was considered for use in the Local Authority and the end is the time at which the “improvement plan” has been implemented thus giving results.

4. The logic linking the data to the propositions

This has to do with the data gathered and how these data were linked back to the propositions (the issues) which in turn were derived from the theoretical framework of this study. This logic linking will be described later in this chapter in section 3.9.

5. The criteria for interpreting the findings

The theoretical framework described in chapter 2 will form the basis for interpreting the findings from the case studies. The method for doing so will be described later in this chapter in section 3.10.