Jönköping University, School of Engineering
Integration in
global development projects
A study of new product development and
production relocation projects
Paraskeva Wlazlak
DISSERTATION SERIES NO. 14, 2016 JÖNKÖPING 2016
Integration in global development projects
A study of new product development and production relocation projects
Paraskeva Wlazlak
Department of Industrial Engineering and Management
Jönköping University, School of Engineering
SE-551 11 Jönköping, Sweden
Paraskeva.wlazlak@ju.se
Copyright © Paraskeva Wlazlak 2016
Publisher: Jönköping University, School of Engineering Printed in Sweden by:
Ineko AB Kållered, 2016
i
Abstract
In today’s constantly changing environment globalization offers opportunities as well as threats to manufacturing companies. One trend in industry is that to meet customer demands and global competition, manufacturing companies need to frequently introduce new products to the market at the right time and cost. Another trend is that manufacturing companies relocate their production sites abroad. Therefore, in this thesis the context is global development projects, which includes both new product development and production relocation projects. The global dimension implies that team members are located in different countries. Integration between team members, which in this thesis refers to interaction processes involving information exchange on the one hand and collaboration or cooperation on the other, is therefore a challenge.
Even if much research exists with regard to integration, integration across national borders in global development projects has not been addressed to a greater extent. Therefore, the purpose of this thesis is to expand the analysis of integration in global development projects in order to gain insights regarding the use of different integration mechanisms. The thesis specifically addresses the influence of national cultural and linguistic differences on integration as well as the use of various integration mechanisms. The results originate from one longitudinal case study of a global new product development project and two retrospective case studies including global new product development and production relocation projects.
In general, it is concluded that in global development projects national cultural and linguistic differences amplify integration difficulties among project team members who belong to different functions. The comparison of the three global development projects indicated that some of the integration mechanisms worked and were used to integrate team members from different functions, while others did not work as intended. Therefore, this thesis argues that there is a need for a diverse set of integration mechanisms that depend on the context of a global development project and specifically on national cultural and linguistic differences.
Keywords: integration, national culture, linguistic differences, new product development, production relocation
iii
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the many people who made my research journey possible and enjoyable. My deepest gratitude and appreciation goes to Glenn Johansson and Kicki Säfsten, who guided me through my research. Glenn has been a great mentor. I am especially thankful for his comments, patience, encouragement, and mostly for believing in me. Kicki’s suggestions significantly improved my work and challenged my thoughts. I am thankful to her for helping me to be structured in my writings and have discipline in my work and also for believing that I can manage.
I would like to express my gratitude to the company involved in the research projects, which provided an opportunity to collect all the empirical data. My appreciation goes to all interviewees in the case studies, who kindly shared their experiences. Without their commitment and open answers this thesis would not be the same. The financial support for this thesis was received from two funding agencies, VINNOVA – the Swedish Governmental Agency for Innovation Systems and the Knowledge Foundation, and is gratefully acknowledged.
I would like to thank to my present and former colleagues at the Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, School of Engineering, Jönköping University, for providing a warm working environment. Special thanks go to Per Hilletofth for his support, encouragement, and inspiration. I would like to thank Malin Löfving, Carin Rösiö, Jenny Bäckstrand and Jessica Bruch for their support and answers to all my questions. You are a great inspiration to me! I would like to thank the Head of the Department, Ingrid Wadskog, for always being warm and understanding. Special thanks also to Johan Karltun for his kindness and support. I am also so grateful to all the friendly Ph.D. students at the department.
Very special thanks go to my family and friends. I would like to thank Nina Edh for not only being my friend but also introducing me to her family, Gunnel and Arne. I will always appreciate the unlimited kindness and the support that you gave me. Further, I would like to thank my closest friend Margarita for still being my friend and not giving up on me even though we cannot meet so often.
I would like to thank my mother, Marieta, and my uncle, Kamen, for introducing me to academic life since my early years. Without your love, encouragement and support I would not become the person I am today. I would like to thank my brother Stefan for knowing how to make me happy. I am especially thankful to my parents in law, Ewa and Boguslaw for the care and the support. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my
iv
husband Sebastian, who has been there for me through the research journey. I am very thankful to him for accepting that I needed extra time to complete my thesis. I am grateful to my son Nathaniel, whose smile can make all problems go away.
Jönköping December 2015,
v
List of appended papers
This thesis is based on the following published and appended papers. The contribution of the authors of the papers is presented after each appended paper.
Paper 1
Wlazlak, P., and Johansson, G. (2014). R&D in Sweden and Manufacturing
in China: A Study of Communication Challenges. Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management, 25 (2), 258–278.
Contribution: Both Wlazlak and Johansson initiated and wrote the paper. Johansson contributed to writing the case description, while Wlazlak was responsible for analysis and conclusions in the paper.
Paper 2
Wlazlak, P., and Johansson, G. (2014). Bridging Geographically Distant
R&D and Manufacturing. Proceedings of the R&D Management
Conference, Stuttgart, Germany, 3–6 June 2014.
Contribution: Wlazlak initiated and wrote the paper. Johansson contributed with comments and improvements. Wlazlak was the corresponding author and presented the paper.
Paper 3
Wlazlak, P., and Johansson, G. (2014). Management of International Manufacturing Relocation Projects of New and Existing Products. Proceedings of the 21st EurOMA Conference, Palermo, Italy, 20–25 June
2014.
Contribution: Wlazlak initiated and wrote the paper. Johansson contributed with comments and improvements. Wlazlak was the corresponding author and presented the paper.
vi
Additional publications by the author, not
included in the thesis
Wlazlak, P., Hilletofth, P., Johansson, G., and Säfsten, K. (2015). Supplier Involvement in Product Development: Critical Issues from a Supplier
Perspective. Proceedings of the 22nd EurOMA Conference, Neuchâtel,
Switzerland, 26 June–1 July 2015.
Hilletofth, P., Wlazlak, P., Johansson, G., and Säfsten, K. (2015). Challenges with Industrialization in a Supply Chain Network: A Supplier
Perspective. Proceedings of the MakeLearn and TIIM Joint International
Conference, Bari, Italy, 27–29 May 2015.
Wlazlak, P., Johansson, G., and Cederfeldt, M. (2012). A Study of the R&D-Manufacturing Interface in Distributed Settings: Experiences from a Chinese Manufacturing Site. Proceedings of the 5th Swedish Production
Symposium (SPS12), Linköping, Sweden, 6–8 November.
Wlazlak, P., and Johansson, G. (2012). Communication Challenges in a Product Development Project faced with Culture and Language
Differences: The Sweden/China case. Proceedings of the R&D
vii
Table of contents
1. Introduction ... 1
1.1 Background ... 1
1.2 Problem area ... 3
1.3 Purpose and research questions ... 4
1.4 Scope of the thesis ... 5
1.5 Thesis outline ... 6
2. Frame of reference ... 7
2.1 Integration between project team members ...7
2.2 Uncertainty and equivocality ... 9
2.3 Culture ...10
2.4 Communication ... 13
2.5 Integration mechanisms………...………..17
3. Research approach ... 21
3.1 Research design ... 21
3.1.1 Selection of the company and the case studies ………...22
3.1.2 Unit of analysis... 23
3.1.3 Data collection ... 24
3.1.4 Analysis of empirical data ... 25
3.1.5 Validation and reliability ... 30
4. Empirical findings ...33
4.1 Case overview ... 33
4.2 Case Beta ... 34
4.2.1 Empirical findings from Case Beta (papers 1 and 2) ... 35
4.3 Case NPI and Case Transfer………..……..39
4.3.1 Empirical findings from Case NPI and Case Transfer (paper 3)………….39
5. Analysis ... 43
5.1 Effect of national cultural and linguistic differences on integration among team members in global development projects ... 43
viii
5.2 Integration in global new product development projects ... 47
5.2.1 Integration by formalization ………...48
5.2.2 Integration by technology ………...49
5.3 Integration in global production relocation projects………...53
5.3.1 Integration by formalization ………....54
5.3.2 Integration by technology ………..………...54
5.4 Summary………....56
6. Conclusions and discussions……….61
6.1 Fulfillment of the purpose………61
6.2 Scientific and industrial contribution of the research………....63
6.3 Discussion of the research approach………....64
6.4 Future research……….64
ix
List of figures
Figure 3. 1 Integration among project team members as a unit of analysis... 23
Figure 3. 2 Research questions and cases covered in papers 1–3. ... 30
List of tables
Table 3. 1 Overview of data collected for Case Beta ... 26Table 3. 2 Overview of data collected for Case NPI and Case Transfer ... 28
Table 4. 1 Overview of Case Beta, Case NPI, and Case Transfer ... 33
Table 4. 2 Integration mechanisms used in Case Beta ... 36
Table 4. 3 Integration mechanisms used in Case NPI and Case Transfer ... 41
Table 5. 1 Integration mechanisms discussed in the analysis (Sections 5.2 and 5.3) and compared with existing literature ... 58
1
1. Introduction
The first chapter of the thesis presents the importance of the research area and formulates the research problem. This is followed by the purpose of the thesis and research questions. Furthermore, the scope and the outline of the thesis are introduced.
1.1 Background
In today’s constantly changing environment, globalization presents opportunities as well as threats to manufacturing companies. To build sustainable competitive advantage, companies need to differentiate their products and have capability to respond quickly to customers’ changing requirements. Companies have learned the costly consequences of missing a market opportunity and the importance of introducing a product to the market at the right time and at the right cost. To cope with competition, companies need to manage a variety of development projects, that is, for example, new product and/or production system development projects (e.g., Liker et al., 1999). Although definitions of production system and manufacturing system exist, in this thesis these two terms are used interchangeably as the focus is on the integration among project team members belonging to different functions and not on the system itself. In addition, the term process is used synonymous with production and manufacturing.
Lawrence and Lorsch (1986) suggested that newness and the complexity of the product and production system impose demanding internal information requirements that can be managed with a high level of integration among project team members. Consequently, the role of integration has been recognized and is considered as valuable in every organization. According to Vandevelde et al. (2002, p. 6), integration can
be defined as “interaction processes involving information exchange on
the one hand and collaboration or cooperation on the other”. Literature suggests that integration is a best practice in which co-located project team members are recognized as a highly effective way to facilitate close collaboration and information exchange in development projects (Adler, 1995). In the past few decades, in their search for cost reduction, companies have started to relocate their production sites to low-cost countries, and this trend still continues. Typically these activities are carried out as projects in which different project team members need to be
2
integrated in order to adapt the products and the production systems to each other (Bellgran and Säfsten, 2010).
This trend towards relocation of production has an impact on the way integration is achieved in development projects. It can be said that the shift towards global production relocation affects not only strategic decision making but also the day-to-day activities of project team members that include, for example, coordination of tasks across national boundaries. The terms global and international are used interchangeably in this thesis. A report by Tillväxtverket (2014) shows a trend towards an increase of the percentage of internationalization of large manufacturing companies, which among other things involves international cooperation or relocation of production abroad. Further, in the last three years, there is a trend towards internationalization of the Swedish manufacturing industry, especially when it comes to medium-sized companies (Tillväxtverket, 2014). Electrolux, a large international manufacturing company, states in its annual report that the company strives to increase its competitiveness through, among other things, relocating production from high-cost regions to low-cost regions, as a part of a production footprint strategy. Today, almost 70 percent of production takes place in low-cost countries compared to 25 percent ten years ago (Electrolux Annual Report, 2014). To conclude, like in any traditional development project, a global project
includes team members from different functional areas that “work
together effectively for a finite period of time to accomplish specific project objectives” (Barczak and McDonough ІІІ, 2003, p. 14). However, team members in global development projects face additional challenges such as physical and temporal distance, cultural diversity, language barriers, or technological infrastructure differences (Kumar et al., 2005). In the literature team members from primarily three functions are often mentioned, namely R&D, marketing, and manufacturing (e.g., Adler, 1995; Ettlie, 1995; Droge et al., 2004; Vandevelde and Van Dierdonck, 2003).
To summarize, the management of global development projects is critical for international companies. Internationalization of the business and global development projects as practices are not new phenomena but it appears that they still pose challenges for companies and affect the efficiency of their operations. Typically, when companies establish production abroad, they expect immediate positive effects; however, the practice has shown ambiguous results. In many cases, global development projects bring risks and disadvantages such as complicated logistics, political risks, or cultural and linguistic differences (Eriksson et al., 2008). In this thesis global development projects are in focus, which means product development projects and production relocation projects where
3
the global dimension refers to crossing of national borders. For example, in a study conducted by Eriksson et al. (2008) one of the respondents from Proton AB explained that it is easy to establish a new production site and install the machines, but the difficult part is to make the organization and all the operations function despite cultural and linguistic differences. Typically, northern countries relocate their production sites to Asia or the Baltic States. In their study based on ten Norwegian companies, Aspelund and Butsko (2010) show a trend towards relocation of manufacturing facilities to countries such as Poland, Russia, Latvia and Lithuania. For example, Electrolux has production sites in 19 countries located in Asia, Eastern Europe, America, and Africa (Electrolux Annual Report, 2014). Another example is Kongsberg Automotive, which has established production sites in Poland and China and has acquired a production site in Korea (Kongsberg Automotive, 2015).
1.2 Problem area
Notwithstanding the right telecommunication technologies and logistics solutions to address the problem of distance, it appears that there is more to distance than physical and time distance. New communication technology has to some extent removed the physical barriers, but the national cultural barriers remain underestimated and not well understood. Understanding national cultural differences becomes an imperative for success in global development projects (McDaniel and Samovar, 2015). Previous research emphasizes the role of national cultural differences and their impact on the way individuals communicate and interact with each other (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1997; Hofstede et al. 2010). There is research on cross-cultural communication and business behavior that accounts for the fact that national cultural differences can lead to miscommunication, misunderstandings, or task conflicts (Hall and Reed Hall, 1990; Hofstede, 1980). National cultural differences might hinder joint sense-making and hence affect the possibility of project team members to arrive at a common understanding of a task. Therefore, when national cultural differences exist, they require additional time and cost for extensive information exchange among project team members (Levina and Vaast, 2008). Other researchers, for example Terwiesh et al. (2001), report that national cultural differences have no influence on global development projects. More research is needed to address how national cultural and linguistic differences affect integration among team members in global development projects (Ceci and Prencipe, 2013).
Prior research demonstrates that team members in global development projects require specific integration mechanisms to deal with the
4
challenges. In this thesis, the terms way of management, bridges, integration mechanisms are used interchangeably. Literature argues that physical distance among team members strain the traditional integration mechanisms (Moenaert et al., 2000; Hinds and Bailey, 2003). For example, physical distance between project team members often results in a lack of face-to-face meetings and heavy reliance on different types of information technology such as emails, teleconferencing, messaging systems, etc. (Smulders et al., 2002; Hinds and Bailey, 2003). The literature argues that the willingness of team members to collaborate in a global development project is a key to success (McDaniel and Samovar, 2015).
The literature suggests that the potential of integration mechanisms to manage uncertainty and equivocality differs (Tushman and Nadler, 1978; Gupta et al., 1986; Stockstrom and Herstatt, 2008). Research shows that different integration mechanisms are needed to reduce uncertainty, associated with, among other things, project team members’ interdependence, and equivocality, associated with, among other things, project team members’ differences (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Frishammar et al., 2010). Exchange of information requires that project team members have a shared interpretation of what the task should be (Daft and Lengel, 1986). However, global development projects are messy with different interpretations of information stimuli. That is why acquiring additional information to reduce uncertainty might lead to confusion among project team members and hence increase the level of equivocality (Daft and Weick, 1984; Weick, 1995). While it is clear that equivocality is an equally important characteristic of global development projects, previous studies have addressed this construct to a lesser extent (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Souder et al., 1998), and uncertainty and equivocality have often been treated separately (e.g. Schrader et al. 1993; Frishammar et al., 2010). Prior literature (e.g., Koufteros et al. 2005; Adler, 1995; Carlile, 2002) suggests that integration mechanisms are dependent on the context in which they are implemented. In other words, certain integration mechanisms might be useful in one context but not in another (see, e.g., Bechky, 2003; Adler, 1995; Koufteros et al. 2005; Liker et al. 1999). However, the literature seldom addresses different integration mechanisms and their potential in global development projects.
1.3 Purpose and research questions
The purpose of this thesis is to expand the analysis of integration in global development projects in order to add insights regarding the use of different integration mechanisms. To address this purpose, three global
5
development projects are studied. In the global development projects, national cultural and linguistic differences among the project team members were in focus.
The thesis covers the following research questions:
RQ1: How do national cultural and linguistic differences affect integration among team members in global development projects?
RQ2: How do different mechanisms support integration in global new product development projects?
RQ3: How do different mechanisms support integration in global production relocation projects?
1.4 Scope of the thesis
This thesis explores the integration between team members in global development projects. The thesis has focused on the manufacturing industry, where global development projects are common practice. Global development projects with different degrees of product and production system newness are included in the thesis. This implies that global development projects are faced with uncertainty and equivocality. The global dimension in development projects implies that team members cross national borders. They belong to global project teams with product development in one country and production in another. This implies national cultural and linguistic differences between project team members. Functional differences between the project team members exist but the focus in this thesis is on how national cultural and linguistic differences add to the integration issues. Integration is discussed in various literature fields, and the thesis covers a wide spectrum of literatures. Examples of topics from literature included in this thesis are organizational design, national cultural and communication management, new product development, production relocation, etc.
6
1.5 Thesis outline
This thesis comprises six chapters. The content of each chapter is briefly presented below.
Chapter 1 Introduction
This chapter presents the background of the research area, followed by discussions around the problem area and a brief description of the research purpose and research questions. The chapter ends with an outline of the scope of the thesis.
Chapter 2
Frame of reference
This chapter has four main sections. The first section presents a definition and discussion of integration, followed by a section dealing uncertainty and equivocality. The third section covers research related to culture, and the fourth discusses communication. The final section discusses integration mechanisms. Chapter 3
Research approach
In this chapter the research design is introduced, followed by discussions around criteria for validity and reliability in the thesis.
Chapter 4
Empirical findings from the cases
This chapter introduces the empirical results based on three case studies. This includes case overview, detailed description of the cases, and results of each of the cases in relation to the research questions.
Chapter 5 Analysis
This chapter presents an analysis of the empirical results in relation to the frame of references.
Chapter 6 Conclusions and discussions
The main conclusions are presented in relation to the research questions and the purpose of the thesis. The contribution of the research is presented, followed by a discussion of the research approach. The final section deals with recommendations for future research.
7
2. Frame of reference
This chapter presents the literature on which the research is based. First integration is defined, followed by definitions of uncertainty and equivocality. Literature concerning culture and communication is introduced. The final section presents various integration mechanisms.
2.1 Integration between project team members
Some of the prior research has taken a contingency perspective of integration. Lawrence and Lorsch (1986) made a great contribution to the classical problem of organizational design. They recognized the systematic properties of an organization and argued that an important function of any system is adaptation to the world outside this system. To be able to adapt, organizations differentiate into functions, each of which deals with a part of the organization’s external environment. In large and medium-sized manufacturing organizations, for example, production deals with production equipment sources or raw material sources, while R&D has the task of expanding scientific knowledge. For an organization to be viable and serve its overall purpose, the differentiated functions need to be integrated (Galbraith, 1973; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1986).
The definition of integration varies in the literature not only among different disciplines but also within a discipline. Lawrence and Lorsch (1986, p. 11) define integration as “the quality of the state of collaboration that exists among departments that are required to achieve unity of effort by the demands of the environment”. Lawrence and Lorsch (1986) argue that integration is not achieved entirely through mechanical processes, but instead there is a need for conflicts to be resolved. Further, integration is defined as a state of interdepartmental relations but also as a process by which that state is achieved and the organizational devices used to achieve it. More recent researchers (e.g., Gulati et al., 2005) suggest that integration can be divided into coordination, i.e., alignment of actions, and cooperation, i.e., alignment of interests. Some researchers consider integration as a process that includes development of links between functions (Adler, 1995; Koufteros et al., 2005). This thesis will follow the definition provided by Vandevelde et al. (2002, p. 6), who define integration as “interaction processes involving information exchange on the one hand and collaboration or cooperation on the other”. Thus, integration covers two parts, information exchange and collaboration. Information is often defined as a message that is part of a communication process. Information possesses relevance and purpose and as such can
8
“change the way the receiver perceives something” or “have an impact on his judgement and behavior” (Davenport and Prusak, 1998, p. 3). In other words, information has a meaning only in a given context. The collaboration part of integration is important for alignment of
interdependent functions by “an affective, volitional, mutual/shared
process where two or more departments work together, have mutual understanding, have a common vision, share resources, and achieve collective goals” (Kahn, 1996, p. 139).
Integration has been discussed as external and internal (e.g., Pagell, 2004; Droge et al., 2004; Koufterous et al., 2005). External integration is associated with integration across organization boundaries, including supply chain integration with customers and suppliers (e.g., Koufteros et al., 2005; Swink et al., 2007). Internal integration refers to cross-functional integration in a function within the boundaries of one company (e.g. Song et al., 1997; Song et al., 1998; Swink, 1998; Brush et al., 1999; Koufteros et al., 2005). Cross-functional integration between marketing, R&D, and manufacturing as well as functions such as purchasing and logistics during new product development projects has been widely discussed in the literature (e.g., Adler, 1995). A survey from the Product Development and Management Association (PDMA) suggests that a total of 69 % of the companies report using a formal cross-functional process for NPD (Barczak et al., 2009). Research on R&D and marketing integration has been dominant, and to a lesser extent research has focused on integration between R&D and manufacturing (e.g., Adler 1995; Ettlie 1995; Turkulainen, 2008). That is why, during the last three decades, research has been devoted to improving knowledge about the integration between project team members from R&D and manufacturing (e.g., Langowitz, 1989; Adler, 1995; Swink et al., 2007; Säfsten et al., 2014). The R&D – manufacturing integration during NPD projects is critical primarily for two reasons. First, R&D – manufacturing integration is associated with all activities necessary to achieve transition from drawing boards to physical production of a product (Bellgran and Säfsten, 2010). Second, previous research has indicated that companies experience difficulties in the management of integration due to, for example, ambiguity involved. While early coordination can help to rapidly detect problems and avoid high costs of product design changes in later stages of the development process, it also restricts the creativity that is necessary to develop new products (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992; Smulders et al., 2002; Droge et al., 2004; Lakemond et al., 2013).
9
2.2 Uncertainty and equivocality
A key implication from previous research is that uncertainty and equivocality are both inherent characteristics of development projects (e.g., Frishammar, 2005; Frishammar et al., 2010). Prior research identifies several drivers of uncertainty related to the state of companies’ external environment such as product and process technology or market newness (Tatikonda and Rosenthal, 2000), demand fluctuations (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1986), as well as fluctuations in the customers’ requirements (Iansiti, 1995). Moreover, the situation per se can lead to uncertainty, like, for example, the newness and complexity of products and processes (Koufteros et al., 2002), organizational complexity, involvement of multiple actors in simultaneous efforts (Wheelwright and Clark, 1992; von Corswant and Tunälv, 2002). The definition of uncertainty by Galbraith (1973, p. 5) is widely used among researchers and describes it as “difference between the amount of information required to perform a particular task and the amount of information already possessed by the individual”. Owing to the fact that one does not have complete information, it is more difficult to predict future outcomes (Downey and Slocum, 1975). Uncertainty reduction can be achieved through acquiring additional information that will assist project team members in evaluating the probability of future scenarios (e.g., Kahneman and Tversky, 1973). Therefore, integration between project team members will facilitate reduction of uncertainty.
Another research area deals with the fact that project team members might not only suffer from lack of information but also interpret the existing information differently (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Equivocality refers to unclear, messy, and ambiguous situations in which multiple and conflicting interpretations of a piece of information exist (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Weick (1995) describes equivocality as the presence of multiple and conflicting meanings possessed by the team members. Unlike uncertainty, which relates to lack of information, equivocality is associated with confusion and lack of understanding. Sources of equivocal situations are, for example, the differences that exist between project team members (Koufteros et al., 2005; Frishammar and Hörte, 2005). A recommendation from prior research is that project team members engaged in development projects should avoid reducing an equivocal situation through accuracy, which is the appropriate measure when trying to reduce uncertainty (Weick, 1995).
Even though prior research argues that equivocality is an important characteristic of development projects, it is surprising that it has received very little attention. More of the difficulties related to cross-functional
10
integration have been attributed to uncertainty or lack of information in projects. An important difference between uncertainty and equivocality is that while uncertainty reduction requires acquisition of additional, objective information, equivocality reduction requires exchange of subjective information between team members (Daft and Lengel, 1986). Equivocality reduction aims at defining a problem and resolving disagreements, which can allow for developing similar judgement of a situation (Daft et al., 1987). Therefore, a conclusion from prior research is that provision of additional information to reduce uncertainty might result in increased equivocality (Weick, 1995). Further, in terms of consequences, Frishammar et al. (2010) argue that the effects of uncertainty and equivocality, if not reduced, can converge into creation of a certain amount of risk in the development project. This risk in turn has consequences in terms of time delays and waste of resources. Brun and Sætre (2009) argue that although uncertainty is a key concept in new product development research, research on equivocality reduction in product development projects is lacking.
2.3 Culture
The concept of culture has been defined by a number of researchers.
According to Hofstede (1984, p. 389), culture is “the collective
programming of the mind that distinguishes the members of one group or category of people from another”. Hofstede et al. (2010) differentiate various degrees at which culture manifests itself. On the one hand, values are in the core of the culture and reflect childhood experience. Practice, on the other hand, is acquired later in life through social experience, for example at school or work. Hence, practice is visible and covers (i) symbols, which are, for example, words, pictures, or objects with their meaning shared only by those who participate in the group, (ii) heroes, who are persons that represent models of behavior, (iii) rituals, which are socially important collective activities. Practice is visible to the people outside the group but its cultural meaning is invisible. Schein (2010, p. 18) describes culture as “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that the group learned as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration that has worked well enough to be considered to be valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to these problems”. Like Hofstede et al. (2010), Schein (2010) argues that culture can be analysed according to the degree to which culture is visible to the observer. It can be described from concrete manifestation to deeper assumptions. Visible organizational structures, processes, language, myths, rituals, and behavior are all artifacts that an
11
individual can see, hear, or feel when entering a new culture. In spite of the fact that they are visible, they might not be easy to interpret, which can lead to equivocality among the employees (Weick, 1995). Espoused values and beliefs are conscious manifestations of the culture and guide day-to-day operating principles and group behavior. Basic assumptions differ from values in that they are non-negotiable and taken for granted by the group members. In that way, each group regardless of its size and location develops “thought world” where members share the same set of assumptions. However, this creates misperception or misunderstanding with members from another group (Dougherty, 1992).
The concept of culture can be applied to different groups on national, organizational, occupational, or functional level (e.g., Hofstede and Bond, 1988). Further, organizations exist in national and occupational cultures that cover basic assumptions about, for example, time, space, or human relations. Consequently, members can bring to their organization assumptions that have an international basis. According to Hofstede et al. (2010), national culture contains most of the basic assumptions acquired early in one’s life. In contrast, organizational cultures are acquired when one joins an organization and mainly consist of practices that constitute a superficial level of culture. Further, Hofstede et al. (2010) placed occupational cultures between national and organizational ones since when one enters a particular occupation, acquisition of both values and practice takes place. Schein (2010) explains that a basic assumption of various functions in an organization is derived from their occupations and education. Lawrence and Lorsch (1986) identify three dimensions of the difference in ways of thinking and working among members of different functions: difference in orientation towards different objectives, time orientation, and interpersonal orientation. This is in line with Vandevelde and Van Dierdonck (2003). For example, production members are typically concerned with low production cost, raw material cost, and quality of finished goods and have a short-term horizon. In contrast, R&D is concerned with technical achievement, development of new knowledge and its application to the product/process, as well as a long-range horizon. Consequently, differences among functions in ways of thinking contribute to integration challenges. Members from each function approach the problems from different frames of reference, which often leads to conflicts during decision taking and making agreements.
Since this thesis focuses on national cultural differences between team members, national cultural dimensions are introduced. Hall and Reed Hall (1990) and Hofstede (1984) develop several national cultural dimensions that may have an impact on the communicative interactions of the employees in an organization. To begin with, Hall and Reed Hall
12
(1990, p. 6) raise the question about “how much information is enough” and argue that cultures differ according to the information released in the occurrence of an event. Consequently, it is justifiable to place cultures on a scale from high to low context. Context is defined as “information that surrounds an event” and is highly related to the meaning of the event (Hall and Reed Hall, 1990, p. 6). In high-context countries, communication tends to be implicit and more economical since the persons already possess the necessary background information through frequent interactions and extensive communication networks with family, friends, and colleagues. High-context cultures tend to focus on the development of close personal relations and daily communication and do not require excessive background information. High-context cultures are for example, represented by Japanese or Mediterranean people. Conversely, low-context countries have a segmented approach to life and hence differentiate between personal relationships and their work. Consequently, each time they interact, detailed background information is needed. Representatives of low-context cultures are, among others, Scandinavians and Americans. As a result, people from high-context cultures can become frustrated when people from low-context cultures provide them with information they do not need. In contrast, people from low-context countries will be lost when high-context people do not provide enough information. To conclude, according to Hall and Reed Hall (1990), one of the greatest communication challenges is to be aware of the differences and to find an appropriate level of released information.
Hofstede (1980) introduces culture maps that help to compare countries across culture dimensions. He has identified five cultural dimensions. (i) Power distance refers to the degree of inequality acceptance in organizations. In large power distance countries importance is put on status and rank, and power is always centralized within a company. This can be linked to the concept of face in Asian cultures that has a great impact on individuals’ behavior and social interactions (Kim and Nam, 1998). Face is based on the social status one holds, where losing face means loss of status. Individuals might lose face when they fail to fulfill their social expectations, are not treated by others with respect in accordance with their status, or other group members fail to meet their social roles. Therefore, individuals in a group are motivated to save their face and not fall behind others with the same status.Moreover, the higher the status of an individual the more he/she is concerned with saving his/her face. Therefore, in order to protect the superiors’ face or in other words pay respect, a subordinate avoids arguing with superiors (Hofstede and Bond, 1988). In contrast, in smaller power distance cultures, subordinates find it much easier to approach their superiors.
13
(ii) Uncertainty avoidance is related to how cultures perceive uncertainty and ambiguity and to what extent people try to avoid them by providing, for example, more formal rules. (iii) Individualism and collectivism are associated with the degree to which individuals are incorporated and dependent on a group. People in individualistic societies obtain satisfaction by a job well done, while in collectivistic societies, individuals search for recognition by the group they belong to. This is also related to the concept of face; protecting one’s face means preserving the respect from one’s group, which is equivalent to preserving self-respect in individualistic societies (Hofstede, 1984). (iv) Masculinity and femininity are associated with the degree to which society values material possessions rather than quality of life and caring for others. (v) Hofstede’s fifth dimension is term versus short-term orientation, where on the long-term side values of importance are thrift (saving) and persistence or having a sense of shame. On the short-term orientation side, values oriented towards past and present can be found. Examples are respect for tradition and fulfilling of social obligations (Hofstede, 1993; Hofstede and Bond, 1988). A culture with term orientation such as China will seek long-term cooperation and values networking.
Brewer and Venaik (2012) discuss the misapplication of Hofstede’s national cultural dimensions in research at an individual level. It is argued that it is wrong to project national cultural dimension characteristics on an individual level. According to Brewer and Venaik (2012), this is true since Hofstede uses nationally aggregated item scores and not scores on an individual level. However, Hofstede (2001) himself applies the national dimension on an individual level. Further, Jaeger (1986) discusses issues related to generalizability of Hofstede’s work. Generalizability is related to the fact that a sample is drawn from one large multinational company. According to the literature, a company with strong organizational culture can lead to homogenizing the values of employees and therefore reduce national differences in multinational companies. Despite these critiques, the cultural maps with their simplicity and structured approach provide insights into culture differences (e.g. Mukherjee et al., 2012; Todeva, 1999).
2.4 Communication
Communication has been defined in various ways in different contexts. When communication and culture are studied together, typically
communication is defined as exchange of information (message), for
example in the form of words or emotions. Communication is often complicated due to the individuals’ culture, which creates a filter for how
14
the message is understood. Communication is possible “between people
who to some extent share a system of meaning” (Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner, 1997, p. 74). In other words, cultural similarities facilitate understanding and communication whereas cultural differences cause miscommunication and conflict (McDaniel and Samovar, 2015). McDaniel and Samovar (2015) use a similar definition of communication and explain that people communicate with intention and achieve their purpose through interaction with each other. To understand how culture influences communication it is necessary to understand the elements of communication. McDaniel and Samovar (2015) present a framework of communication, in which communication consists of eight elements necessary to manage message and create meaning: (i) the sender or the originator of the message, (ii) information that is transmitted and expected to be understood by the receiver, (iii) a communication channel that allows the transfer of the message, (iv) a receiver who is the intended destination of the message with a meaning assigned to it, (v) a response or an action as a result of the assigned meaning to the message, (vi) feedback or evaluation of whether the receiver has assigned similar meaning as the sender, (vii) noise, which includes distortions of the intended meaning of the message between sender and receiver such as, for example, culture differences, and (viii) environment, which refers to the physical and social environment. All of these communication elements represent factors that can facilitate or hamper communication.
Trompenaars and Hampden-Turner (1997, p. 74) explain that
intercultural communication is the “communication that takes place
between people from different cultures”. This is relevant for all levels of culture, national, organizational, occupational, or functional. Therefore, intercultural communication is often considered to be filled with misunderstandings and frustrations (Stephan and Stephan, 2002). Gudykunst (2002) argues that distinct groups might develop idiosyncratic systems of meanings, which complicates the exchange of information. It appears that communication in global development projects is complicated not only by functional differences between the team members but also by national cultural and linguistic differences (McDonough ІІІ et al., 2001).
McDonough ІІІ and Kahn (1996) argue that getting people to work together goes beyond having global project team members connected through ICT technologies. Building trust appears to be more difficult due to few or lack of face-to-face meetings. Lack of frequency of interactions can result in difficulties in cooperation and trust building (McDonough ІІІ et al., 2001). Furthermore, project team members in global development projects operate in very different contexts and they tend to lack shared
15
experience, norms, and beliefs, which affects the establishment of trust in the project (Mattock, 2003; Hinds and Bailey, 2003; Kumar et al., 2005). According to Allen (1984), the probability of project team members to interact is reduced with the reduction of the physical distance. Therefore, it is said that physical distance can separate thought worlds and exacerbate functional and personality differences (Vandevelde and Van Dierdonck, 2003). According to Cramton (2001), global project team members lack contextual information, which can lead to conflicts. In the context of
intercultural communication, conflict is often described as “perceived
and/or actual incompatibility of values, expectations, processes or outcomes between two or more parties from different cultures over substantive and/or relational issues” (Ting-Toomey, 2015, p. 355). Intercultural conflict typically starts with misunderstanding. Section 2.4 presented various dimensions of core value characteristics of different cultures. When individuals meet for the first time they typically communicate out of their culture’s assumptions, beliefs, and communication styles. Intercultural misunderstanding or conflict occurs as a result of violation of expectations.
Communication is affected by semantic noise that often occurs during intercultural communication. Individuals who communicate in a language other than their mother tongue will often have accents or misuse a word or phrase. Thus, this can influence the receiver’s understanding of the message and lead to frustration and miscommunication (Mattock, 2003; Cargile, 2015). Linguistic differences between project team members are seen as a barrier and a further impact on the quality of information exchange (Stringfellow et al., 2008). Nowadays business English, for example, is an official language. Linguistic differences often result in misperceptions and communication difficulties. Hofstede et al. (2010) explain that to be able to express oneself in another language requires learning and adopting someone’s frame of references. Language is also an important vehicle to transfer and adapt to another national culture. Linguistic limits the individual’s thinking to the extent to which words are available. Furthermore, for communication to take place, the sender needs to have a desire to communicate and transfer the message (Axelson, 2008; McDaniel and Samovar, 2015). Similar findings are presented by Moenaert et al. (2000), who argue that intercultural communication requires that the sender of information has intent to exchange information. Lack of intention can be a result of, for example, the sender’s incapability or unwillingness to exchange the information. Further, Moenaert et al. (2000) mention that information needs to have an effect on the receiver. However, national cultural differences can hinder project team members
16
to establish trust and utilize the received information (Brown and Eisenhardt, 1995).
According to Daft et al. (1987), communication media vary in their capacity to facilitate shared meanings within a given time interval and hence manage equivocality. The dimensions that define the richness of media are (i) instant feedback, (ii) transmission of multiple cues or the number of ways information can be communicated as text (spoken or written words, numbers), physical presence, verbal cues (voice inflection), or nonverbal cues (gestures), (iii) language variety, which includes range
of meaning that can be conveyed with language symbols, (iv) personal
focus,which includes possibility for the messages to be adjusted according to the current needs and situation of the receiver (Daft et al., 1987). Rich media allow for the sender and receiver to communicate more quickly and better understand equivocal messages. Conversely, less rich media (also referred to as leaner media) are more suitable for less equivocal tasks. Communication that helps to unite different frames of reference and helps to clarify ambiguous situations in a timely manner are considered rich.
Daft et al. (1987) develop a continuum of a number of media; in order
of decreasing richness these media are face-to-face; telephone; written
addressed documents, such as letters or memos; unaddressed documents. Face-to-face communication allows for instant feedback and multiple cues, in which the message can be adjusted and clarified instantly. Instant feedback is important for the speed and effectiveness of communication. It helps the sender to confirm if the receiver has understood the message correctly. The more time is necessary to receive the feedback, the more time is necessary to complete a task. This is one of the reasons why computer-mediated communication rather than face-to-face communication brings about transition delays. Synchronous media provide immediate feedback and are considered richer than asynchronous media. Telephone, on the other hand, provides fast feedback and uses natural language; however, it is considered less rich than face-to-face communication due to lack of visual clues. When verbal and nonverbal clues are removed, it takes longer to understand a message. Typically, media of low richness are appropriate for efficient communication of large amounts of objective information and for support of routine decisions. Less rich media are effective for processing of well-understood messages and information since they involve fewer cues and restrict immediate feedback. Rich media have the capacity to facilitate convergence of divergent perspectives. The richness of media is discussed by researchers (e.g. Axelson, 2008; Bruch, 2012).
In global development projects, the use of communication media such as emails, phone calls, electronic file transfers, and videoconferencing
17
(McDonough ІІІ and Kahn, 1996) is often discussed. Research (e.g., Treviño et al., 1990; Rice 1992) discusses the need to position the new media on the continuum of media richness. For example, videoconferencing is less rich than face-to-face but has greater capacity than telephone. Furthermore, it is a synchronous medium providing voice and visual cues. Teleconferencing is less personal than video conferencing and that is why it is more appropriate for explicit exchange than for resolving conflict or enabling negotiations. Treviño et al. (2000) provide empirical support for the theoretical placement of electronic mail (email) on the media richness continuum. Email can be positioned on the richness continuum between telephone and non-electronic written communication (letter) (e.g., Markus, 1994).
2.5 Integration mechanisms
Galbraith (1973) and Lawrence and Lorsch (1986) refer to integration mechanisms as any managerial tool that assists in achievement of integration in an organization. There are a great number of integration mechanisms, some of which are appropriate for a large amount of information while others facilitate information richness (Daft and Lengel, 1986; Galbraith, 1973). Integration mechanisms that link interdependent functions include, for example, rules and procedures, planning and scheduling, or coordinating units such as product teams or task forces. The more complex these integration mechanisms are, the more their capacity to manage interdependencies and reduce uncertainty increases. Daft and Lengel (1986) further elaborate on Tushman and Nadler’s (1978) recommendations and argue that integration mechanisms need to be able to reduce also equivocality in projects. Consequently, Daft and Lengel (1986) propose a continuum of integration mechanisms that help to integrate team members from different functions.
Integration mechanisms in order of decreasing equivocality and
increasing uncertainty are the following: (i) group meetings cover
integration mechanisms such as project groups, task forces, or committees (e.g. Galbraith, 1973; Van de Ven, 1976). Group meetings are advantageous for management of equivocal situations as they enable discussions and exchange of opinions. The ultimate aim is to overcome functional differences between project team members, (ii)integrators refer to, for example, liaison staff and integrative departments (Galbraith, 1973; Lawrence and Lorsch, 1986). This integration mechanism is suitable to overcome disagreements between team members rather than dealing with large amounts of information and hence more suitable to manage
18
associated with the creation of lateral, often informal, relations between functions. Tushman and Nadler (1978) emphasize the importance of the creation of a network of informal and personal contacts, meetings, visits, training, and cross-functional job rotation, (iv)planning refers to systems and processes such as strategic planning, budgeting, and schedules that guide the activities and actions of various functions (Galbraith, 1973; Van de Ven, 1976), (v) special reports are appropriate for obtaining objective
information and hence reduce uncertainty, (vi) formal information
systems allow for rapid information exchange between project team members (Galbraith, 1973; Daft and Lengel, 1986). These integration mechanisms are moderate to low in richness and include, among other
things, periodic reports or computer databases, (v) formalization and
standardization includes written policies, rules, and standard procedures through instruments such as manuals and charts, etc. (Tushman and Nadler, 1978; Van de Ven, 1976; Martinez and Jarillo, 1989).
Some researchers have acknowledged that integration mechanisms between project team members from different functions differ according to the context in which they are applied (Bechky, 2003; Carlile, 2004). When the conditions are stable and differences and dependencies between project team members are known, i.e., a common lexicon exists, integration mechanisms need to have the capacity to retrieve or store information in, for example, repositories (e.g., databases). However, when uncertainty increases, the differences and dependencies between project team members become unclear and there are interpretive differences regarding, for example, what a word means. Carlile (2004) argues that standardized forms use a shared format with mutually understood structure and language and hence help to represent the differences and dependencies across functions. These are, for example, cross-functional problem-solving templates (e.g., engineering change formats, Design Failure Mode and Effect Analysis - DFMEA, Process Failure Mode and Effects Analysis - PFMEA). Further, integration mechanisms that are perceived as appropriate in such circumstances are cross-functional teams, colocation, shared methodologies, aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM), and visits (Carlile, 2002, 2004), and individuals as brokers or translators (Allen, 1984; Wenger, 1998). Bechky (2003) demonstrates the role of the integrator to assist in translation of meanings between two functions that have different understanding of the product and production process. Carlile (2002, 2004) argues that certain integration mechanisms need to have the capacity to negotiate the interests between functions. Examples of such mechanisms are objects or models (e.g., sketches, assembly drawings, parts, prototypes, assemblies, mock-ups, simulations), or schedules (e.g., Gantt charts, process maps). To
19
overcome physical distance and national cultural differences between project team members, the literature mentions the need of site visits where face-to-face communication take place. To overcome national cultural differences between team members, cross-culture training is often mentioned as an appropriate mechanism (Grant and Gregory, 1997). Further, in global development project the use of communication technology to integrate team members if frequently discussed. Section 2.4 thoroughly describes various communication media.
Some of the prior research has adopted a contingency perspective to look at integration mechanisms. Koufteros et al. (2002) investigate the relationship among uncertainty, equivocality, integration mechanisms, and performance. Koufteros et al. (2002) agree with Daft and Lengel (1986) and suggest that companies that face a changing and complex environment, or in other words, high levels of uncertainty and equivocality, need to utilize to a great extent integration mechanisms such as heavyweight product development practices, concurrent engineering, and computer usage, to achieve better performance (product innovation, quality, and profitability). Later on, Koufteros et al. (2002) raise a doubt about the role of uncertainty and equivocality as a moderator of the relationship between integration and performance. Their results show that in a low-uncertainty and low-equivocality environment, companies that adopt integration mechanisms will also reach a higher level of performance. This is due to the fact that these integration mechanisms (heavyweight product development practices, concurrent engineering, and computer usage) promote information exchange through cross-functional teams and parallel work as well as an increase of information availability and flow. It is assumed that development in parallel (concurrent engineering) and early involvement of all functions can reduce uncertainty by stimulating the communication cross-functionally and hence promote early detection of problems and avoid engineering changes. In addition, cross-functional project teams provide an opportunity for exchange of perspectives and enable debates and express of concerns (Koufteros et al., 2005; Koufteros and Marcoulides, 2006). In other words, Koufteros et al. (2005) argue about the importance of face-to-face contact where project team members can converge on equivocal cues. Adler (1995) and later Twigg (2002) developed a taxonomy of integration mechanisms, which appear to be contingent on the stages of the NPD process. An explanation for the mix of the mechanisms is the differences in the type and intensity of interdependence between functions during the course of an NPD project.
21
3. Research approach
This chapter presents the method used to carry out the research in this thesis. This is followed by the research design. Subsequently, the data collection techniques are introduced. Finally, the validity and reliability related to the research methods are discussed.
3.1 Research design
The purpose of this thesis is to expand the analysis of integration in global development projects in order to add insights regarding the use of different integration mechanisms. According to Karlsson (2009), knowledge expansion in a literature field can go through different stages depending on the existence of prior knowledge. Research in a particular field first explores the critical components (what is in the field), then the relationships (what it is like) and at the end suggests the effects (why it is like that). While the topic of a global development project is not new, research on integration in different global development projects remains limited. Therefore, an explorative case study is perceived as an appropriate research strategy (Yin, 2009). This research explores issues concerned with integration in global development projects. Case study is a valuable strategy for theory building and it is used to facilitate the exploration of a phenomenon in its context using a variety of data sources (Baxter and Jack, 2008; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2009). Furthermore, case study appears to be appropriate when studying a complex problem in its real life environment where the boundaries between the phenomenon and the context are unclear.
The number and the selection of case studies are in relation to the phenomenon being explored (Eisenhardt, 1989). Multiple-case studies are regarded as being more robust in comparison to single-case designs. Another rationale for choosing multiple-case studies is the replication logic. Multiple-case design is appropriate to check whether the context influences the conclusions. Multiple-case design in comparison to single-case design is better for analytic generalization. This research has chosen to study multiple cases and hence study the phenomenon, namely integration, in different contexts of global development projects.
22
3.1.1 Selection of the company and the case studies
The case studies were conducted in the manufacturing industry, which provided a dynamic environment for global development projects where the rate of technological and market change is high. Hence, this environment is inherent with a great deal of uncertainties. Further, to meet global competition, manufacturing companies develop new products for which geographically and organizationally dispersed team members need to work in collaboration. The choice of company and cases studied was based on several criteria:
a company selected for the case studies needs to be responsible for both product and production system development. This criterion is important since the focus in this study is on global new product development and global production relocation projects.
Project team members across national borders. This implies national cultural and linguistic differences between project team members.
The discrete product consists of several components, which implies a certain degree of complexity.
The project has different degrees of product and production system newness, because the complexity and the degree of newness create a certain degree of uncertainty and equivocality. On the basis of these criteria an appropriate company and three cases were selected. The name of the company is not disclosed. It is referred to as Company A (see papers 1–3). Company A is a large Swedish manufacturing company acting on the global market. The company specializes in a wide range of outdoor products. The competitive situation of Company A calls for frequent introduction of new products on the global market. To be close to the market and meet the cost requirements, the company has allocated its product development and production facilities across North America, Europe, and Asia. Company A relies on production to obtain competitive advantages and meet customers’ requirements in terms of price, quality, time, and volume. Market forces caused Company A to acquire and build new production sites in Europe, Asia, and America. This allowed for development of local supplier bases, which is in line with the company strategy.
Three cases were selected, Case Beta, Case NPI, and Case Transfer. Case Beta is a real-time, longitudinal case study. An longitudinal case study is associated with in-depth, real-time studies that focus on a specific phenomenon over a long time (Åhlström and Karlsson, 2009). The
real-23
time case study provided valuable information on how the global development project (Case Beta) evolved over time. This is in line with Voss et al. (2002). The global development project in Case Beta was selected in order to capture the dynamic of such a project from early project start until full-scale manufacturing. The main problem of longitudinal case studies is that they are time-consuming for the researchers and company representatives. Two retrospective case studies (Case NPI, Case Transfer) were further carried out. These retrospective cases allowed for collection of data on historical events. The rationale behind the selection of these three cases was the opportunity to select different types of global development projects to broaden the insights into the relevance of various integration mechanisms. Case Beta originated from a research project called Distributed Innovation Projects: management of technological and organizational challenges in distributed settings (DINO). The duration of the project was from July 2008 until December 2012. The author of this thesis was involved in the project during 2011.
3.1.2 Unit of analysis
A unit of analysis, according to Miles and Huberman (1994, p. 25) is “a phenomenon of some sort occurring in a bounded text”. The unit of analysis can be an individual, an event,or a situation. The unit of analysis
is closely connected with the specified RQs and the problem area
(Williamson, 2002). It is argued that the generalization of results obtained is also associated with the unit of analysis, meaning that the results can be applied to other organizations, processes, events, individuals, and so on. Unit of analysis in this thesis is integration among project team members. In this thesis the context is considered to be different types of global development projects. An illustration of the unit of analysis and the context in this thesis can be found in Figure 3.1.
24
3.1.3 Data collection
The main collection technique in all three cases was face-to-face interviews with respondents covering a diversity of project roles. In all three cases interviews were conducted at a variety of sites. The choice of the relevant persons for interviews in Case Transfer and Case NPI was made with the help of the contact person at Company A. The collection of the data in Case NPI and Case Transfer was carried out between December 2012 and February 2013. The participants of the three cases were informed about the confidentiality of their participation and briefly familiarized with the purposes of the respective projects. On several occasions, respondents in turn suggested other persons that were of importance for the study and hence additional data were collected. In general the interview questions in all three cases were semi-structured and open-ended with the aim of providing understanding of the integration between project team members in the global development projects. In addition, the questions covered issues such as integration challenges as a result of physical distance, national cultural and lingustic differences among the project team members as well as the use of different integration mechanisms. All of the interviews were audio-recorded and supplementary notes were taken.
In addition to the interviews, this research made use of several other data collection techniques such as collection of company documentation, observations, and workshops to construct a robust understanding of global development projects. The documentation provided to the respective cases was a basis for improving the understanding of the context of the specific global project. Informal interviews and casual observations were further useful to get insights into the phenomenon under study. The collection techniques for Case Beta are presented in Table 3.1, while Table 3.2 covers those for Case NPI and Case Transfer.
The data in Case Beta were collected in the frame of the research project DINO. The global development project in Case Beta was studied over a period of 3.5 years. The author of this thesis was involved in the project since January 2011. This meant that the data were not collected exclusively by the author of the thesis, but also by other researchers involved in the DINO project. Therefore, there is a need to further specify the contribution to the data collection by the author of the thesis when it comes to Case Beta (see Table 3.1). The data in Case NPI and Case Transfer were collected and transcribed entirely by the author of this thesis.
The literature review provided inspiration to find an under-researched area (Karlsson, 2009). It helped to identify the problem area in a particular theoretical field. The subject of this thesis, integration in global
