The research process

The above has argued in favor of qualitative research. It should be stressed that the use of qualitative data has no value per se, but is a search based on the argument that it is the kind of data that could in the end render the prospective conclusions of this research as believable.

As discussed in Chapter 1, this research tries to make sense of a real world phenomena using available means. Any data or prior research that can shed light on management of IS integration in M&A is thus welcome, and not exclusively qualitative data and research founded upon such sources. While traditionally the distinctions between qualitative and quantitative studies have been of almost paradigmatic nature, several researchers have started to emphasize the need to break down the qualitative/quantitative divide (e.g. Bryman, 2001; George &

Bennett, 2004; Robson, 2002). It is counterproductive to isolate one methodological stream (George & Bennett, 2004). When doing qualitative studies, literature describing research based on quantity data should also be regarded. Likewise, conclusions from different schools, such as variance vs process research, could influence each other’s research in case studies, something that, for example, Mohr (1982), who holds the view that variance and process research are fundamentally incompatible (without actually giving any argument why it is so), would not agree to. This current research, drawing on George and Bennet (2004), takes the position that case studies benefit from pluralism in gathering techniques and sources and should use the means available to shed light on the phenomenon studied.

based on the existing literature, and later empirically extended by case-studies which formed the theoretical kernel for prescriptive theory. This disposition is effective to outline undertaken research activities and their individual contribution to the final research contributions, but it does so in a somewhat too simplistic a manner. In reality, theoretical and empirical input has functioned in an iterative process toward the fulfillment of the study’s purpose. It is evident that theoretical reasoning and prior experiences already affected this study in terms of perspective selection and choice of methodological approach. The theoretical framework was then used as foundation for empirical data gathering and analysis. Similarly, empirical discoveries were used to direct further theoretical studies and extensions of the theoretical framework. Extending the theoretical framework triggered collection of new empirical material which, in turn, led to a need to extend the framework, and so on.

Iterative cycles of empirical and theoretical phases are considered appropriate when the objective is to develop a profound understanding of a theoretically immature domain (Alvesson & Sköldberg, 1994;

Dubé & Paré, 2003; Mays & Pope, 1995; Miles & Huberman, 1994;

Yin, 1994). In fact, much research that claims to be inductive often is partly deductive (Alvesson and Sköldberg, 1994). The use of a theoretical framework was criticized during the 90’s due to its lack of empirical support and constructed terminology. Today, however, the awareness of prior research on the subject is commonly argued essential for capturing relevant data while doing empirical field work, as it creates the foundation for actually advancing the academic field (Webster & Watson, 2002). The framework also creates the foundation for analytical generalization in case-studies (Yin, 2003). In order to develop the tentative framework, a literature study was carried out.

Since IS integration in M&A is a scattered and fragmented research topic, Pawson’s (2006) recommendation to center the literature on a desired outcome was followed. The outcome in this case was to identify properties of IS integration with potential impact on the general M&A process, and M&A properties with potential impact on IS integration, in analogy with the study’s first research question. This type of literature study is essential to create the kind of evidence based management knowledge which is strived for in the study’s second phase (Pawson, 2006).

5.2.2 Research activities

The highly iterative research approach employed can be depicted as in Figure 5.1. The outline is a rough simplification which indicates the major phases of the different research activities. As described above, theoretical, empirical, and analytical research activities were commonly running in parallel although it was possible to identify certain phases where one type of activity was more prominent than another. Initially, there was strong focus on making sense of existing research in order to have a solid foundation to build upon and to identify knowledge gaps that needed to be addressed. Some interaction with Trelleborg representatives did take place during the first year, but information gathered was rather general with the aim of mapping identified knowledge gaps and the availability of empirical data within the Trelleborg group. A second major theoretical phase was also after empirical data for the first case study had been collected, and the preliminary theoretical framework could be revised based on the findings. Similarly, a third theoretical phase was initiated based on the data from the other cases studies.

In three of the four cases studies, empirical data was collected during a relatively limited empirical timeframe. The CRP-case data collection was more wide spread since the goal was to follow the process as it unfolded over time. In practical terms, empirical data collection was directed by the actors involved in the selected M&As. This meant that the primary unit of study and unit of analysis were the business

Year 1 (0409-0508) Theoretical

Empirical CMP/Kléber CRP

Chase-Walton Dynaflex Analytical

Research activities

Year 2

(0509-0608) Year 3

(0609-0708) Year 4 (0709-0808)

Figure 5.1 Schematic overview of major theoretical, empirical and analytical phases

Time

activities that were to be integrated as a consequence of the M&A. In two cases the purchased unit was combined with Trelleborg on the division level (Chase-Walton- and CRP-cases, see Chapter 7), and in two cases (CMP/Kléber- and Dynaflex-cases) the combination was made on the business unit level. Chapter 6 will explain how the heterogeneous organizational structure of Trelleborg renders integration, sometimes on the division level and sometimes on the unit level when activity integration is sought. In short, the reason is that some divisions have one single business model for the whole division, while others can be regarded as a collection of business models where every unit has a distinct set of business activities.

In this study analytical activities followed upon empirical data collection. Consequently, one major analytical phase was to be found in relation to the termination of the first case study. A second analytical phase was based on the Chase-Walton and Dynaflex data. Chapter 8 presents the results of the two first analytical phases. A final analytical phase was directed to the cross case comparison when most empirical data had been collected. In this analysis the level of analysis was raised to group-level. The four cases were contrasted to find similarities and differences. Through comparison it was also possible to identify if any changes in the way Trelleborg was managing IS integration in their M&As had taken place. The results of this analysis will be accounted for in Chapter 9.