Organized to digitize: A new perspective on collaboration and structure

IN THE FIELD OF TECHNOLOGY DEGREE PROJECT

INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT AND THE MAIN FIELD OF STUDY

INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT, SECOND CYCLE, 30 CREDITS STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2018,

Organized to digitize

A new approach on collaboration and structure

JONATHAN GUNNARSSON MARCUS KJELLBERG

KTH ROYAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

This page was intentionally left blank

Organized to digitize

A new perspective on collaboration and structure

Jonathan Gunnarsson Marcus Kjellberg

Master of Science Thesis INDEK 2018:06 KTH Industrial Engineering and Management

Industrial Management
 SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM

Digital organisering

Ett nytt perspektiv på samarbete och struktur

Jonathan Gunnarsson Marcus Kjellberg

Examensarbete INDEK 2018:06 KTH Industriell Teknik och Management

Industriell Ekonomi och Organisation SE-100 44 STOCKHOLM

Abstract

This master thesis was conducted at a large Swedish manufacturer, where the perception on and challenges regarding digital transformation were studied. Digital technology is a gateway to numerous possibilities, simplifying production, altering products and creating new value offers. This study is focused on commercial digitalization, such as digital services and solutions that challenge or strengthens existing business models.

A manufacturing firm, accommodated with the development of physical products is not adapted for the speed, flexibility and cross-functional collaboration which digital development requires. Though, the digital business area for a manufacturing firm is somewhat unresolved, with limited knowledge and guidelines as well as uncertain profitability. Reallocating resources from existing business towards digital development can thus be risky. Evidently, development of digital initiatives within a manufacturing firm requires high pace, support, structures and clarified roadmaps. Synergies from cross-market collaboration are important, but it can also increase complexity and tardiness in a large organization.

Based on findings from this study, a manufacturer should alter its organizational structure to benefit their digital transformation. Speed should be prioritized over collaboration and traditional development should increasingly focus on business and consumer contact rather than technology. A common back end function should be increasingly utilized, developing digital technology for the whole organization, to ensure unanimity and simplifying development of similar initiatives. Digital initiatives tightly connected to products or existing business models should be developed within the corresponding functions. Support and inspiration towards digital development should derive from a holistic function that can aid and guide the whole organization. This function should also be responsible for digital initiatives that differentiate from traditional business. Increasing experience and proactively develop digital solutions will be important to stay ahead of competition and fulfill customer demands.

Keywords: Digitalization, digital manufacturer, digital servitization, digital transformation, organizing digital, structure for digital


Master of Science Thesis INDEK 2018:06

Organized to digitize:

A new perspective on collaboration and structure

Jonathan Gunnarsson Marcus Kjellberg

Approved

2018-06-05

Examiner

Anna Jerbrant

Supervisor

Anna Jerbrant

Commissioner Contact person

!

Sammanfattning

Denna masteruppsats utfördes hos ett stort svenskt tillverkningsföretag, där uppfattning om och utmaningar kring digital transformation studerades. Digital teknik öppnar upp för otaliga möjligheter, förenklar produktion, förbättrar produkter och skapar nya värdeerbjudanden. Denna studie fokuserar på kommersiell digitalisering, så som komplementerande tjänster och lösningar som utmanar eller stärker existerande affärsmodeller.

En produkttillverkare, van vid utvecklingen av fysiska produkter är inte anpassad till den snabbhet, flexibilitet och det samarbete mellan affärsfunktioner som digital utveckling behöver. Det digitala marknadsområdet är dessutom osäkert, med begränsningar i erfarenhet, riktlinjer och osäker lönsamhet. Omdisponering av resurser från existerande affärsverksamhet kan därför vara farligt. Bevisligen behöver digital utveckling inom ett tillverkande företag snabbhet, stöd, strukturering och tydliga mål. Synergier från samarbete mellan kundgrupper i en organisation är viktigt, men kan också öka komplexitet och tröghet i ett stort företag.

Baserat på studiens resultat bör ett tillverkningsföretag anpassa sin organisationsstruktur till fördel för digital transformation. Snabbhet bör prioriteras framför marknads-överskridande samarbete och mer traditionella instanser borde öka fokus på utveckling av affärsmodeller och kundrelationer. En gemensam back end instans borde användas i större grad genom att utveckla digital teknologi för hela organisationen. Detta skulle skapa enighet, minska duplicering och förenkla utvecklingen av likartade projekt. Digitala initiativ som är kopplade till fysiska produkter eller nuvarande affärsmodell borde utvecklas tillsammans med dessa.

Stöd och inspiration för digital utveckling borde komma från en holistisk instans som kan stötta och ledsaga hela organisationen. Denna instans bör även vara ansvarig för att utveckla mer radikala digitala initiativ. Att öka erfarenhet och att proaktivt arbeta för digital utveckling kommer vara mycket viktigt för att motstå konkurrens och uppfylla kundkrav.

Nyckelord: Digitalization, digital manufacturer, digital servitization, digital transformation, organizing digital, structure for digital


Examensarbete INDEK 2018:06

Digital organisering:

Ett nytt perspektiv på samarbete och 
 struktur

Jonathan Gunnarsson Marcus Kjellberg

Godkänt

2018-06-05

Examinator

Anna Jerbrant

Handledare

Anna Jerbrant

Uppdragsgivare Kontaktperson

!

Table of contents

List of figures and tables IX

Foreword X

Abbreviations XI

1. Chapter one - Introduction 1

1.1. Background 1

1.2. Problematization 2

1.3. Purpose 3

1.4. Research questions 3

1.5. Expected contribution 3

1.6. Limitations 4

1.7. Delimitations 4

2. Chapter two - Theory and literature 5

2.1. Digitalization in manufacturing industries 5

2.2. Digital servitization 7

2.3. Exploitation and exploration 9

2.4. Radical innovation vs incremental innovation 10

2.5. Ambidextrous organizations 11

2.6. Organizational separation 12

2.7. Temporal separation 13

2.8. Contextual ambidexterity 13

2.9.Innovation in collaborative networks 14

2.10. Process innovation 15

2.11. Organizational change 16

3. Chapter three - Method 19

3.1. Research design 19

3.2. Case studies 21

3.3. Literature review 22

3.4. Interview methodology 25

3.5. Observations 29

3.6. Method for data analysis 29

3.7. Validity and reliability 32

4. Chapter four - Results and analysis 35

4.1. Firm perception and digital initiatives 35

4.2. Holistic analysis 49

4.3. Key findings 51

5. Chapter five - Discussion 53

5.1. Culture and perception of digitalization 53

5.2. Organizational structure 56

5.3. Digital development 59

5.4. Collaboration 62

5.5. Structuring digital initiatives 64

5.6. Structural proposal 67

6. Chapter six - Conclusions 71

6.1. Conclusions 71

6.2. Limitations and future research 74

References 75

Appendix I - Interview guide 78

Appendix II - One pager (first phase) 79

Appendix III - One pager (second phase) 80

List of figures and tables

Figures

Tables

Figure 1 - Diffusion of innovations (Roger, 1983) 6

Figure 2 - Framework for exploitation & exploration (Lavie et al., 2010) 10

Figure 3 - Technology innovation 11

Figure 4 - Overview Organizational separation 13

Figure 5 - The road to commitment (Koller & Loup, 2005) 16 Figure 6 - Maturity in digital transformation (adopted from Andervin & Jansson, 2016) 17

Figure 7 - Process overview 19

Figure 8 - Organizational overview of the case company 35

Figure 9 - Simplified Organizational structure including forums and digital initiatives 38

Figure 10 - Customer centered INNOVATION 60

Figure 11 - Proposed Organizational Structure 67

Table 1 - Study keywords 24

Table 2 - Interviews in the case study (Corbin & morse, 2003) 25

Table 3 - Interviews in phase one 27

Table 4 - Interviews in phase two 28

Table 5 - The five stages of data analysis (Denscombe, 2010) 30

Table 6 - Categories for cataloging interviews 31

Table 7 - Project Alpha 40

Table 8 - Initiative attributes Project Alpha 41

Table 9 - Project Bravo 42

Table 10 - Project attributes Project Bravo 44

Table 11 - Project Charlie 45

Table 12 - Project attributes Project Charlie 46

Table 13 - Project Delta 47

Table 14 - Project attributes Project Delta 48

Table 15 - Possible attributes of NBI, PCI 66

Foreword

This study has been conducted as a Master Thesis during the spring of 2018 on behalf of KTH, Royal Institute of Technology and the case company. The thesis is the final part of a Master of Science degree in Industrial engineering and management from KTH.

There are many of whom we owe gratitude to for their knowledge, feedback and guidance to this thesis. First of all, we want to thank our two supervisors for their time, inspiration and support throughout the semester, Anna Jerbrant, Associate professor at the Department of Industrial engineering and management, KTH and the Director of innovation management at the case company.

We would also like to extend a warm thank you to Marin Jovanović, Beatrice Björk as well as all interviewees and the rest of the employees at the case company, whom with their participation, insights and support made this thesis possible.

Jonathan Gunnarsson Marcus Kjellberg

5th of June 2018 Stockholm

Abbreviations

B2B Business to Business

B2C Business to Consumer

CD Construction divison

DOT Group digital operations and technical development

IoT Internet of Things

MD Mass market consumer division

NBI New business innovation

OD Outdoor professional division OEM Original equipment manufacturer

PA Project alpha

PB Project beta

PC Project charlie

PCI Product centered innovation

PG Project delta

RD Residential garden division

USP Unique selling points

This page was intentionally left blank

1. Chapter one - Introduction

1.1. Background

Production growth in the Swedish manufacturing industry has had a weak development during the 21st century (SCB, 2018). In a study conducted on mature markets under similar conditions , one can also see that the global productivity growth has declined and is at ¹ historically low levels (Bughin et al., 2018). While this is an outcome of many variables, one of the most present reasons for the business stagnation is believed to be an uncertainty for digital implementation and development (Beltagui et al., 2018).

The Swedish industry is commonly associated with quality, innovation and expertise, aiming to improve and simplify life (Bergström et al., 2016). Historically, Swedish original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) have successfully utilized new technologies (ibid), creating competitive advantages and unique selling points (USPs). They are also deemed to have good prerequisites for acquiring and developing new business segments and continue their development (ibid).

However, the introduction of digitalization doesn’t solely demand a technological adaption (Davies et al. 2006). The new technology is accompanied by new business models, value offerings and strategic choices which require a larger collaboration between business functions (ibid). Digitalization acts as a glue, binding together different units, products and services that normally wouldn’t operate together (Sundström, 2017). This ultimately puts increased pressure on the organization, its structures and affects the everyday business.

”Traditional structures and capabilities have to be transformed and continuously refined.” (Davies et al. 2006, p.40).

Digitalization as a concept is widely known, and its importance for business’ can hardly be argued with (Digitaliseringskommissionen, 2016). Jan Gulliksen, a professor at KTH and head of the Swedish state-appointed digitalization committee between 2012 and 2016, called the impact of digitalization on manufacturers as ”the most socially disruptive process since the industrialization” (ibid). Digitalization has revolutionized many industries, mostly evident in music and media, but it is also affecting the more traditional manufacturing industry. It challenges companies to evaluate their business models and forces them to experiment with the new technologies to stay ahead of competitors. The new technology is mainly centered around digital tools to improve production, act as stand-alone products or as services, which complements or substitutes existing business models.

This study involves digital servitization, an increasing trend within the manufacturing industry. While services vary in complexity and offerings their function can usually be stripped down into two categories, to increase customer satisfaction or differentiation.

Services are used to create competitive advantage, strengthening existing products or by creating a substitute for existing business models. Different types of services have their own demands on the organization, its flexibility and structure. It is widely suggested that manufacturers should be prepared to modify their organization to promote the development of digital services. (Beltagui, 2018)

The digitized market within the manufacturing industry has been acknowledged for a long time, but due to uncertainty and restraint, it can still be seen as unexplored (Mauborgne &

Kim, 2005). The business area lacks both experience as well as supporting tools and frameworks, resulting in a vast majority of unsuccessful projects (Schilling, 2017). This explains why organizations, despite advocating a digital transformation, hesitates and postpones the process (Mauborgne & Kim, 2005). Though despite having its risks, digital innovation projects are necessary to conduct and develop in order to maintain a competitive advantage (EY, 2011).

The case company, a Swedish OEM has undergone many transformations during its long history. However, these transformations have always been centered around physical products, testing new segments or radically changing production. This time they are faced with the challenge of introducing a new type of offer, seeing past the physical product and elaborating with digital solutions and new business models. Now services, application- based data handling and processes involving an increased collaboration are important. In this study, a case company has been used to represent the Swedish manufacturing industry and examined to explore the challenges which the whole industry faces. While the firm has many strengths within e.g. human capital, supply and experience, it isn’t accustomed to developing digital initiatives. The ongoing digital transformation is a challenge for companies like the case company, but the exploration of new business models, concepts and structures are vital for its continuous success.

1.2. Problematization

Digitalization is constantly increasing the speed of change and development (Holmström &

Nylén, 2015), creating a larger demand for adaptability and flexibility within the organizations (Birkinshaw & Raisch, 2008). When new markets and technologies emerge, smaller incumbents often take the lead due to their advantage in speed and ability to adapt. Larger companies, on the other hand, struggles to keep up, due to traditional processes and tardy structures. There are many theoretical solutions, advocating the innovation and collaboration required but their usability in practice varies. Many theories focus on different forms of ambidexterity, creating explorative instances or tools to develop digital projects (Shapiro, 2013). This strategy could avoid the resistance of old structures and routines creating agility and increased growth (Rosen, 2017). Though, there are many

trade-offs to be accounted for when creating structure and strategies. While separation increases flexibility, it also aggravates communication and collaboration, possibly decreasing customer satisfaction (Baines et al., 2015).

As earlier stated, digital products and solutions aren’t yet profitable for a manufacturing firm and while many advocates digital development, the financial demands of a listed organization lingers. When resources are reallocated and used in digital initiatives instead of traditional business it can weaken the firms’ financial results. It can therefore be both unappealing and dangerous to prioritize digital development.

Speed and synergies are also underlying factors for digital development in any firm. While the extraction of synergies from cooperative development is very attractive for an organization it can also be very complex depending on structures and organizational size.

Possible synergies can be omitted by traditional processes and complex cooperation can lead to tardiness for the initiative. The question arising is, to what extent synergies from collaboration are valuable and when they should be neglected to prioritize speed and development. Naturally, this is affected by many parameters such as environment, type of market, customer behaviors etc., but finding the optimal level is a challenge for all companies, with multiple strategies at a time (Gjelstrup et al., 2015).

1.3. Purpose

The purpose of this study is to investigate how digitalization is perceived within a manufacturing company, by collecting data on how past and present digital initiatives have been developed. This will increase understanding of how organizational structure and collaboration between business units effects digital transformation. Ultimately this will thereby contribute to research regarding organization in relation to digital transformation.

1.4. Research questions

R1: What is the perception of digital transformation from the perspective of a Swedish original equipment manufacturer (OEM)?

R2: How does organizational structure and collaboration affect an OEMs readiness for digital transformation?

R3: How can an OEM be organized to proactively cope with the digital transformation of the business environment?

1.5. Expected contribution

As stated above, there is a knowledge gap in how to optimize an organization for the digital transformation. The digitalization has preceded the existing academic foundation, due to its speed of development. The importance of digitalization is becoming increasingly evident and therefore the need to catch the trend and understand the effects and what strategies are needed is vital.

We aim to create an understanding of how digitalization affects a large OEM, with data on how this transformation can be handled. This would contribute to the development of companies in their transformational journey and enable them to make informed decisions based on more than internal opinions and outdated experience.

1.6. Limitations

Time is a clear limitation in this case. Given the boundaries of a thesis proposal, there is only a certain amount of time, thereby limiting the extent of the study. Further, only one company is thoroughly investigated, as a consequence of the time restraint.

1.7. Delimitations

For this study, four projects within the case company have been chosen. They are diversified and of variable strategic importance. While applying our conclusions to a generalized industry, it isn’t necessarily applicable to every Swedish manufacturer. Similarly, given the structure of the case company, acting as a constraint, the conclusions are mostly applicable to product manufacturing companies operating in silo structures.

We have also chosen to limit the study to value-adding projects with digitalization as a foundation, e.g. complementing services and business enhancing initiatives tied to digital technology. Therefore, when discussing digitalization, we are excluding topics such as automatization, digitization and stand-alone digital services. We also distinguish between organizational innovation, changes to organizational structures, administrative processes, and technological innovation.

The manufacturing industry investigated is defined as the Swedish product manufacturing industry. In other words, companies producing for an end customer either engaging directly with the customer, or using retailers and dealers as distribution or selling channels.

The business could be both business to business (B2B) or business to consumer (B2C) but must be product centered.

2. Chapter two - Theory and literature

The theory has been chosen both in order to give the reader a thorough understanding of the issues to be discussed, as well as provide a research-based foundation on which to base discussions and conclusions. First will we introduce general innovation and concepts which are important to understand when discussing digitalization. We will then move on to one of the major challenges, as well as opportunities for manufacturing firms in regards to digitalization by introducing and explain digital servitization. In order to utilize e.g servitization, which is a new business area for many of these product centered companies, both core business as well as new business must be focused on. This leads into how to conduct both exploitative and explorative initiatives at the same time. In relation to digitalization, exploration and exploitation can be seen as radical and incremental innovation, therefore this definition is explained to further cement the understanding of the new concepts. One way to handle exploit and explore is by implementing ambidextrous organizations, where three different ways are mentioned in this study. Initializing more explorative business, and implementing an ambidextrous organization, requires process innovation. Another interesting aspect which can be used to enhance discussions and conclusions in this thesis is collaborative networks. While this is commonly discussed as technological collaboration between organizations, it can also be applied to discuss internal collaboration. Ultimately an alteration of an organization has to be undergone and the organization’s ability to handle these changes properly will be an important factor in the digital transformation.

2.1. Digitalization in manufacturing industries

Digitalization and automation are transforming the manufacturing industries in several different ways. In a study published by the Nordic Council of ministers (IRIS Group, 2015) four different effects were stated:

• The use of digital technologies to communicate with each other and/or report back to users or producers. This in order to optimize use, maintenance and energy consumption, resulting in greater control and larger levels of independence for the units.

• Using digital technologies to bridge companies, suppliers and customers, enabling a closer collaboration with e.g. innovation, inventory control, adjustment for demand patterns etc.

• Digitalizing the production and introducing a high level of automation by the use of robotics and computer-aided manufacturing systems that increase labour productivity performance.

• Automating administrative tasks as well as communication within the value chain.

Digitalization is a broad term with multiple interpretations depending on both field and market. When discussing digitalization it is therefore important to define the term for the specific context. Bylund et al. (2016) points toward two meanings of the term, digitization

and digitalization. Digitalization, which is covered in this report, refers to changes in processes, organization and systems by the usage of digital technology (ibid).

Companies can, according to the Nordic Council of ministers (IRIS Group, 2015) be divided into three groups in relation to digitalization and automation. This classification is a simplified model of Everett Roger’s Diffusion of innovations first published in 1962.

• Innovators - a small group of advanced companies highly involved in developing the digital technologies for the future, working in fast, agile and adaptive ways.

• Early adopters - companies that are the first to adopt the new technologies, and are first movers in developing and exploring new business models.

• Followers - companies that wait until technologies become more mature before they apply and invest in them.

FIGURE 1 - DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS (ROGER, 1983)

It is important to understand that all three parts are vital to the development of new technology. While the innovators create and develop the new technologies, early adopters are vital to start the diffusion and increase the general knowledge for this new development. They also serve as inspiration and establishes case examples for others to follow. Lastly, the followers are crucial for the big uptake and general dispersion of the technology. It is they who make an impact on the overall level of digitalization for a sector or a country. (IRIS Group, 2015)

Digital maturity is an umbrella term, trying to visualize the level of an organizations readiness to embrace digitalization. An article in MIT Sloan management review defines it as

”a psychological definition of ’maturity’ that is based upon a learned ability to respond to the environment in an appropriate manner” (Bucley et al., 2017).

Internet of things (IoT) and digital maturity have grown into two of the most crucial topics in the business world (Bucley et al. 2017) and Sweden is considered as one of the best countries at utilizing the possibilities of digitalization (Digitaliseringskommissionen, 2016).

In general terms is the Swedish manufacturing industry digitalized to a higher extent when compared to the rest of the EU (IRIS Group, 2015) enabling the use of new types of offers and services.

2.2. Digital servitization

With digitalization as a foundation, servitization has grown as a complement, creating additional value to existing products. Servitization has been an important topic for many firms the last two decades and while some businesses have had their digital transformation, the manufacturing industry’s is yet to come (Baumgartner et al., 1999: Baines et al., 2015).

There are important benefits offered by the downstream market including revenues, higher margins and a reduction of assets compared to traditional product manufacturing (Baumgartner et al., 1999). Due to the intimate connection to their products, manufacturing firms are well positioned to broaden their business model and develop their downstream activities (ibid). Though, doing so will require an expanded definition of the value chain, a shift in focus and new ways of thinking strategy (ibid). Emerging and rapidly developing digital opportunities puts extra pressure on existing business models advocating changes for traditional OEMs (Khanagha et al., 2014). ”Technological change or other exogenous forces triggers the discovery of emergence of new business models” (Khanagha et al., 2014.

p. 324).

Servitization represents an alteration of a business model with a transformation from selling goods to selling an integrated combination of both goods and services (Baines et al., 2015).

”Overall, research generally agree that moving to a service focus can provide long term advantages for manufacturers” (Baines et al., 2015. p. 54). Locking competitors out of the market and increase profits are the main drivers of servitization, it frees competitors from competing with solely cost and allows greater differentiation. Baines et al. (2015), similarly to Beltagui et al. (2018) categorize servitization within three areas:

• Base - Spare part provision, equipment provision

• Intermediate - Helpdesk, training, maintenance

• Advanced - Customer support agreements, outcome-based contracts.

The addition of services or solely the service as product allows manufacturers to create value across the entire product lifecycle, a strategic alternative that may generate superior performance (Bianes et al., 2015).

While it is important to participate in this transformation, it is equally dangerous to be too early as too late (Khanagha et al., 2014). When the market is not sufficiently developed, it is not advisable to be a first mover (ibid). Adapting for servitization with new internal processes and structures can be very risky, diverting resources from the traditional manufacturing to uncertain initiatives (Beltagui et al., 2018). ”Choosing the right approach to manage services can reinforce competitive advantage” (Baines et al., 2015. p. 57)

As earlier stated, a transformation for services advocates changes in organization and strategy. Since the manufacturing strategy traditionally has been based on the physical product with focus on vertical integration, delivery processes and value streams, a transforming firm has to create new processes and structures to undertake new challenges (Baines et al., 2015). This reconfiguration is also aggravated by the lack of empirical

research that describes how a transformation could or should be conducted (Beltagui et al., 2018).

The main strategies for an OEM’s servitization are competitive differentiation and customer satisfaction (Baines et al., 2015). The ability to realize these strategies does depend on your position in the value chain, where only a top positioned firm can create competitive differentiation through additions for, complements to, or alterations of the product (Baines et al., 2015).

Depending on what kind of service the firm wants to develop, the recommended structures vary. For example, high contact activity requires interpersonal skills and should therefore be located close to the customer, whereas simpler services closer related to the product need more contact with the product developers (Baines et al., 2015). Different configurations can exist concurrently within one organization, or even within one division but it can be hard to implement and flexible processes and structures will be necessary (Beltagui et al., 2018).

Overall, theory advocates some sort of ambidexterity for service initiatives (Khanagha et al., 2014: Baines et al., 2015: Beltagui et al., 2018). Though, functional separation leads to challenges within experience, labour and processes and the extent of the separation should be deliberated. Beltagui et al. (2018) state that more complex initiatives, intermediate or advanced, should be structured with a separation of back- and front end activities. Thereby, the back end retains the product ”core” and a sealed of front end can focus on innovation and efficiency. The extent of the separation depends on the initiative and its requirement of product development. Baines et al. (2015) state that the structural strategy can be based on the goal of the service, whether it should result in differentiation or customer satisfaction.

When differentiation is key, a specialized unit or external partner should develop the initiative, whereas customer satisfaction could be developed directly by business functions.

Khanagha et al. (2014) are more reserved in advocating ambidexterity since a business model disruption can be harmful to a company, overturning core value creation and requiring lots of resources. While realizing the risks from separating business functions, they acknowledge that new business models through servitization need a separated platform to prioritize the required exploration. The optimal approach according to Khanagha et al.

builds on a separated function while allocating tasks to members of the existing organization, keeping experience while creating a unified organizational development (ibid). The development could be described as unfolding, influencing future moves of the organization.

The most common structures for servitization are (Baines et al., 2015. p.58):

• Creating a new business function to oversee all service responsibilities

• Create a new business function to handle specific services

• Allow service operation to run in parallel with existing structures.

• Outsource some services and allow internal business functions to manage the others.

When attempting servitization and thereby entering a new domain of business, it is important to simultaneously focus on both old and new businesses, and bear in mind that they can require different processes and structures (Beltagui et al., 2018). There is a challenge to develop business and yet maintain focus on core competencies (Lavie et al., 2010).

2.3. Exploitation and exploration

When sustainably developing a business two key concepts are exploitation and exploration.

Dovev Lavie with colleagues (2010) explained it very simply. Exploitation is the ability to enhance productivity, incrementally innovate and improve existing products, whereas exploration engages individuals in search for new products, using more disruptive and radical innovation. Tushman and Smith (2002) connected the concepts within technology innovation, and defined incremental innovation to be exploitative, whereas radical innovation is explorative. Studies since have adopted the same view and developed it further (Birkinshaw & Reisch, 2008). As a business, it is important to be able to efficiently use your core business, and ensure stable revenue streams and sources of income from them.

At the same time, without challenging models and existing products you are at risk of being disrupted by incumbents or competitors, presenting new solutions, potentially stealing market shares. Research has shown that companies operating in dynamic market environments need to exploit existing business while simultaneously exploring new opportunities (Rafiq & Wang, 2014).

Most companies today agree that both activities are vital for a companies learning and success on both short and long term. Though, they come with their own inherent challenges, in addition to the complexity of achieving both simultaneously (Rafiq & Wang, 2014: Benner & Tushman, 2003: Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004). Researchers believe that a well balanced combination of explore and exploit is essential for long term success (Birkinshaw

& Raisch, 2008).

Researchers have, when studied the concept, showed that tensions arise when organizations try to pursue exploitation and exploration at the same time (Birkinshaw &

Raisch, 2008). Naturally, given the highly competitive environment of today’s business, there is a constraint in resources and trade-offs will be present. Organizations could be faced with trading short term productivity for long term innovation, potentially risking liquidity.

However, doing the opposite and only allocating resources to incrementally improve existing technologies render the company with the risk of becoming obsolete (Lavie et al., 2010). Similarly, whereas exploitation stands for a more stable organization, exploration is often associated with flexibility and change (ibid). Thus, organizations focusing on exploitation to a large extent develop structural stability and effectively trade stability for flexibility. The framework developed by Lavie et al. (2010) provides an easy overview of the complexity in relation to explore and exploit, seen in figure 2.

FIGURE 2 - FRAMEWORK FOR EXPLOITATION & EXPLORATION (LAVIE ET AL., 2010) Exploitation and exploration have different effects on the outcome of the organization. One must be aware that even though the importance of exploration is established and agreed upon, the rewards are less certain and effects are distant, providing arguments for an increased leverage towards exploitation. For this reason, explorative units are often smaller, while the exploitative parts constitute the majority of the organization (Benner & Tushman, 2003). However, as can be seen in large firms who in recent years gone into decline due to a lack of innovation, it is of the highest importance to find this balance. This, in order to be adaptable in the short term and adequately prepare for the future.

2.4. Radical innovation vs incremental innovation

Important concepts to thoroughly understand exploration and exploitation are radical and incremental innovation (Birkinshaw & Raisch, 2008). Even though commonly used, they play an important role in describing the differences between explore and exploit. Incremental innovation, defined as minor adaptations to existing products within existing markets, is improving the business. Radical innovation however, no longer builds on existing knowledge but introduces new technologies and a switch from current products. This often leads to new market opportunities, thus creating new demand and product offers.

FIGURE 3 - TECHNOLOGY INNOVATION

Tushman and Smith (2002) later connected these to explore and exploit, and showed a clear correlation between the two. Incremental innovation is described as exploitative and radical as explorative.

2.5. Ambidextrous organizations

Ambidextrous organizations, as defined by Raisch and Birkinshaw (2008) is ”an organizations ability to be aligned and efficient in its management of today’s business demands while simultaneously being adaptive to changes in the environment”. The origin is derived from the word’s original meaning, ”both favorable”, referring to the ability of using both hands equally well. It is perhaps an even better explanation using the metaphor of a jongleur, constantly keeping multiple balls (representing two different focus areas, exploit and explore) in the air at the same time.

The concept was coined and first used by Robert Duncan in 1976, but it was Jim March’s article in 1991 that is seen as the catalyst for the term (Birkinshaw & Rasch, 2008). It has today developed into an essential perspective for interpreting behaviors and outcomes, and a vital concept to consider when preparing the organization for the future (Lavie et al., 2010). The concept’s inherent trade-off, the difficulty to focus on existing business and yet also have structures and processes exploring and preparing for the future, were considered unsurpassable but recent research has presented a variety of solutions to support ambidexterity (Birkinshaw & Rasch, 2008). The positive effects of ambidexterity have been

empirically proven (Birkinshaw & Raisch, 2008; He & Wong, 2004), enforcing its importance when developing any business, but also within technological innovation (He & Wong, 2004).

What seemed as an impossible task has developed into an increasingly important business concept, to find a balance between exploitation and exploration (Benner & Tushman, 2003).

2.6. Organizational separation

Organizational separation is perhaps the most obvious solution to the balance dilemma (Lavie et al., 2010). Research acknowledges the importance of designing organizational forms that are able to provide a good match between the companies existing activities and processes as well as allowing for its changing context (ibid). Using organizational separation this is achieved by structurally designing separate organizations, each with its own focus on either exploration or exploitation. The units would be highly differentiated and within each unit there is a coherent strategy, tasks and culture which would not be the same across them (ibid). This would be classified as a structural ambidexterity (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004).

Prior research has often regarded trade-offs, due to resources and internal tensions, to be insuperable. However, recent research has presented a variety of organizational solutions to counter these and support organizational ambidexterity, including but not limited to structural mechanisms, organizational context and leadership characteristics (ibid).

However, even though both exploration and exploitation are equally important, structurally ambidextrous organizations tend to be structured in a specific way. The exploitative unit is larger and more centrally governed, with cultures designed to increase efficiency and incrementally improve products through process management (Lavie et al., 2010). The exploratory unit is significantly smaller, and more loosely constructed (ibid). These more decentralized units are designed to generate innovation through experimentation, using a looser culture and are able to operate more flexibly (ibid). Due to the difference in culture and processes, they must remain separate in order to avoid any cultural or procedural spillovers, negatively affecting the purpose of the other. Using this loose integration of separate units, organizations are able to simultaneously perform both exploitative as well as explorative activities and maintain a balance between them through active integration from the senior management (Jansen et al., 2009).

Recent research points towards the need for separation not only at lower levels but also across higher hierarchal levels (Lavie et al., 2010). The solution to become ambidextrous by dividing the organization in two is plausible, however not trivial. Inevitably, the challenge of coordinating efforts and maintaining a coherent organization culture shifts to the senior management team (ibid). They will be charged with conforming and synchronizing the different teams and ensuring that the goals are met both individually as well as on group level.

FIGURE 4 - OVERVIEW ORGANIZATIONAL SEPARATION

2.7. Temporal separation

Temporal separation is also about splitting up and separating exploitation and exploration.

However, instead of doing this by structurally creating two separate organizations or units, Laviel et al. (2010) describe it as an approach where time is used to alternate the focus. The idea is to cycle exploitation and exploration within each existing unit, at a given cycle rate (ibid). This means that focus is either on exploitation or exploration at any given time, which ensures that both processes are occurring. Constantly changing focus enables the organization to avoid problems of conflicting pressures (Lavie & Rosenkopf, 2006) though they will inevitably be faced with other issues (Lavie et al., 2010). The transitions are crucial, and also the most difficult. The concentrated focus can lead to a path dependence making it difficult and delaying the switch, resulting in loss of productivity (ibid). For that reason, efficient processes that manage the transitions are required.

Due to the nature of temporal separation, with alternating cycles of changed focus, it puts a lot of stress on the organization. Hence an agile organization is required, which is skilled in changing and maintaining the desired focus (Lavie et al., 2010). Achieving temporal separation is no easy task, and requires a lot of coordination between units and tasks, as well as carefully tending to the transition phases in order to conduct these properly (ibid).

2.8. Contextual ambidexterity

Contextual organizational ambidexterity, defined as the capacity to simultaneously achieve alignment and adaptability at business unit level (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004). By combining insights from earlier research Birkinshaw and Gibson created this concept, linking structure and processes, and adding a system perspective into what they called the organizational context. Alignment is defined as coherence among all patterns of activity within the business unit while adaptability is the capability to reconfigure activities in order to meet changing demands. They argue, in contrary to earlier suggestions that ambidexterity is achieved not through the separation with dual structures or temporary cycles. Instead, it is done by creating a set of processes and systems enabling each individual to make their

own decisions on how to best divide their time between conflicting demands for alignment and adaptability (ibid). Their concept, building on previous research, characterizes the context as a combination of discipline; inducing members to strive towards expectations, stretch; inducing members to strive for ambitious projects, support; induces members to assist and help each other, as well as trust; inducing members to rely on the commitments of others, these in turn facilitates contextual ambidexterity (ibid).

Their study (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004) conducted on 41 business units spread across 10 different industries and included over 4000 individuals they showed a strong correlation ² between adaptability and alienability, indicating that both can be achieved simultaneously.

Also, ambidexterity (the combination of the two) had a strong correlation with performance, strengthening the argument for ambidexterity and dual capacity. Perhaps the most important remark from the study, which is also supported by a later study by Rafiq and Wang, indicated that there isn’t necessarily a trade-off between alignment and adaptability (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004: Rafiq & Wang, 2014). Further, the systems used to achieve alignment around adaptability were found to be quite simple and often decreased formality (Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004).

However, even though its positive effects can be proven, contextual ambidexterity is very difficult to implement thoroughly (Rafiq & Wang, 2014). Creating effective mechanisms which integrate exploitation and exploration are not straightforward, and this implementation is key to succeess. Given that research has been focused on organizational separation more research is needed to better understand how this should be done (Rafiq &

Wang, 2014: Birkinshaw & Gibson, 2004).

2.9.Innovation in collaborative networks

Collaborative networks are defined as multiple entities, collaborating together to achieve common goals (Fang et al., 2016). Schilling (2017) states that there is a growing recognition of the importance of collaborative research, the market environments are developing rapidly and firms does not keep up. The term is most commonly used when the collaborations are conducted between multiple firms, forming collaborative relationships sharing information and strategies (Fang et al., 2016). Innovative networks are helpful in achieving optimal allocation of resources and promoting knowledge transfer performance (ibid). The key mechanism of the innovative network is the collaborative relationship, setting the boundaries of the networks outcome (Freeman, 1991). While goals might differ between the entities, the collaboration may still be preferable for the actors. For example, a small firm A, might need the financial support from a larger one, B, whiles B requires the creativity and innovation from A given by the flexibility of a smaller organization (ibid). A functioning technological network spreads knowledge throughout the cluster creating

Including industries such as industrial products, automotive engineering, electronic equipment and

2

heavy engineering

spillovers, enabling technology and knowledge from one area to be applicable in another (ibid).

2.10. Process innovation

It is important to clearly distinguish between product innovation and process innovation, even though they are intertwined and dependent on each other. Process innovations are defined as innovations in the way the company is conducting business, for example how they are processing products and services (Schilling, 2017). Product innovation on the other hand is connected to the actual products, new or enhanced products emerging onto the market.

Despite being different, they are interconnected with each other. New processes might lead to new products, or new products might require new processes (Schilling, 2017).

Depending on the business, what is considered a process innovation for one company could at the same time be a product innovation for another. To exemplify, when the global United parcel service (UPS) helps a customer to establish a new distribution system, what would effectively be considered a product innovation for UPS and a process innovation for the customer. That is why it is so important to establish a clear distinction between them, and also thoroughly decide what a certain product/process is considered for your business.

While more important for some businesses than others, innovation is a crucial part of a manufacturers development. Usually, this innovation is centralized around incremental innovation, altering existing products to enhance its capabilities. The current market environment does, as earlier discussed, put pressure on increased exploration emphasizing the importance of an adaptable organizational structure. The structure of the organization its usage of formalized procedures and controls can significantly influence a firms innovativeness (Schilling, 2017). Commonly its argued that smaller, more flexible firms have an advantage in a strive towards innovation. Larger firms on the other hand have benefits from well-developed procedures resulting in better development investments and experience in implementation (ibid).

According to Schilling (2017), the main factors to take into consideration when discussing the influence of structure are; formalization, standardization and centralization. There is no golden rule that fits for all organizations, the exact proportion of these factors vary between firms and businesses. The conclusions that can be drawn however are that formalization and standardization are necessary, contributing with increased effectivity while utilizing them too much can result in a stiff organization unwilling to explore. Centralization on the other hand can enable significant innovation to occur more rapidly while decentralization can create broader exploration. Some firms have attempted to divide their organization into a more specialized division that can behave like smaller entrepreneurial firms, with a structure similar to the ambidextrous organization discussed earlier.

2.11. Organizational change

Organizational environments are dynamic where both direction and speed of change are difficult to anticipate (Zimmerman, 2011). While theory might easily advocate fast alterations of organizational structure and business models, the actual execution of these changes are difficult and complex (Khanagha et al., 2014). Though, in order to survive in the long term, organizations need to be adaptable and cope with the changing environment (Zimmerman, 2011).

The road to commitment, as presented by Koller and Loup (2005), describes the transformation process from the perspective of the affected. The two authors state that a successful change isn’t easily achieved but demands a lot of time and processing to be conducted properly. The process of transformation wanders through multiple steps starting with understanding and resulting in commitment. This model argues that a resistance can be avoided proactively by creating clear goals, kinship and communication. Though ”if they believe that change will not help and could hurt the organization, they do not fully believe in that change” (Koller and Loup, 2005 p. 76). Usable tools to encourage participation and build commitments are to engage in cross-functional teams, large group meetings, embrace failures as learning and continuously integrating change efforts. They also state that resistance might be a part of the journey and that some people will react differently than others on their road to commitment.

FIGURE 5 - THE ROAD TO COMMITMENT (KOLLER & LOUP, 2005)

Goodman and Loh (2011) emphasize the importance to include people as a strong parameter in organizational change. They state that people don’t resist change but resist begin changed and that the biggest challenges in an organizational transformation involvesthe employees (ibid).

Andervin and Jansson, in their book To lead digital transformation, divided the digital transformation into three maturity phases: mobilizing, coordination and acceleration (2016), see figure 6. Their approach is similar to Loup and Koller, but rather than handling a generic transformation change, applied the knowledge directly on digital transformation. In the first phase, the focus is on mobilizing force, engaging the organization and create an interest in the transformation. During the coordination phase, an understanding of what is happening within the company is established, what works and what doesn’t. Here the focus lies on how the organization should work with digitalization. In the acceleration phase, having created an interest and understood how the company should approach digitalization, focus is now on what, finding suitable value offers and revenue models. It is also in this phase where the two prior separate operations, digital and core business, are consolidated and benefit each other. (Andervin & Jansson, 2016)

FIGURE 6 - MATURITY IN DIGITAL TRANSFORMATION (ADOPTED FROM ANDERVIN &

JANSSON, 2016)

This page was intentionally left blank

3. Chapter three - Method

3.1. Research design

When designing this research, it was decided on an abductive approach in order to overcome specific weaknesses connected to the inductive and deductive approach separately, mostly due to a lack of general scientific hypothesis within the area. Abduction is inferring a case from a general rule and result (Svennevig, 2001) and therefore require both a result and a rule. Given that the area of investigating is rather unexplored, and that there is a lack of general rules on how to address the situation, first of all, such a rule or hypothesis must be formulated. For this, an inductive approach is suitable (ibid), applied in the first phase, see figure 7 for a visual overview. Then, in the second phase, a deductive approach was used with the aim of construing a result, testing the hypothesis from phase one. Though there is a lot of documented theory surrounding organization and digitalization, not much research has been conducted within this specific field. As the research questions and area of investigation are hard to quantify, it was settled on a qualitative method in order to gain insights from people actually dealing with these issues on a daily basis and collect their experiences as a foundation for discussions and conclusions (Blomqvist & Hallin, 2015).

This, in combination with existing theoretic material, was used to analyze and create a broader understanding and provide conclusions on how to approach stated research questions.

Due to the complexity of digitalization and the speed of its development, there are few, if any specific theories related to the investigated area. Hence, the open mind of the inductive research is required to construct a valid hypothesis to be thoroughly investigated and tested using a deductive approach. By using elements from both approaches and applying an adductive mindset it is believed to generate the required outcome in terms of generalizability and result.

FIGURE 7 - PROCESS OVERVIEW

For several reasons, continuous writing was used throughout the report. Foremost due to time restraints where it was necessary to ensure deliverance. Also, viewing the writing as an important part of the process, writing continuously resulted in constant thinking and iteration, rewriting and questioning conclusions (Ely et al., 2005).

Project initiation includes administrative work underlying the study. This included understanding and learning about the case company, gaining access to necessary documents, getting familiar with the surroundings and introducing/being introduced to certain people. This also involved understanding criteria from KTH, what we were expected to produce, ensuring the study would be sufficient and satisfy all requirements.

To ensure proper understanding of the problem and sufficient theoretical knowledge the work was divided into two phases. The arrows in figure 7 represent an analysis being conducted, where gathered material was summarized and concluded. An overlap between the theoretic reading and interviews in phase two was settled upon, largely due to time restriction and the need to be flexible and efficient, therefore using time in-between interviews to read and gather knowledge. As stated earlier, this initial part of the study was conducted with inductive research in order to create a data foundation to further analyze. It consisted of a qualitative study, starting with theoretical research, reading and expanding our knowledge. This was conducted mainly via journals and articles, as well as internal material given from the case company, further explained in section 3.3.

A first, smaller round of interviews was conducted, with six interviewees with mixed experience from digital initiatives at the case company, an overview is provided in section 3.4.3. The selected group of interviewees was chosen in close collaboration with our supervisor from the case company. A mix between open and semi-structured interviews was used for this, in order to ensure discussion within current areas and avoid the risk of excluding valuable information, interesting remarks and potential important side-tracks.

More on how the interviews were conducted in section 3.4. The interviewees were chosen for having great knowledge within the different areas of investigation, from digital initiators to project leaders and management planners.

Phase one was followed by an extended literature review, closely tied to the data collected from the conducted interviews. This approach enabled certain hypothesis to be formulated as a foundation for the rest of the study. The first interviews and the theoretic reading was summarized and used to create the interview guide which was used for the rest of the interviews, see Appendix I.

In phase two a second data collection for the study was conducted, complementing the theoretical research. This was done using semi-structured interviews through a deductive approach, using information from the pre-study as a foundation of what to obtain. An overview of the people used for this collection of data can be found in table 4. Findings collected from interviews were gathered within multiple case studies. By studying several

projects we were able to obtain information from different types of initiatives and interact with people with various views and opinions. All participants were carefully selected in order to ensure proper coverage of different projects, establishing a profound foundation for conclusions.

3.2. Case studies

Case studies are commonly used as a basis for theories within social sciences (Yin, 2003).

The case study method allows investigators to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events such as managerial processes, individual life cycles and the maturation of industries (ibid). The main benefits from conducting a case study include the opportunity to establish a complete view, facilitating usage of method combination, efficiently using existing framings and structures, allowing a flexible method of approach (Denscombe, 2017). The case study research is appropriate when asking questions such as how and why (Yin, 2003; Gillham, 2000).

In this study, a combination of an exploratory and comparative approach (Yin, 2003) will be used in multiple case studies. This, in order to explore a broad data foundation and conduct comparative discussions and analysis, reaching for interesting findings and conclusions. As explained in the research design, the aims are slightly different for the two phases; the first acting as the foundation for the other, to ensure that no important information or parameter gets overlooked.

Four cases within the case company were studied, designed as a multiple case study (Yin, 2003). A multiple case study was deemed necessary due to the complexity of the research setting and question. One case is simply not enough to be able to understand and to draw any conclusions from, which is where the inherent increase in robustness and validity from the multiple case study is achieved (ibid). Single case studies are also more vulnerable (ibid), due to the face of you putting ”all your eggs in one basket”, which is lessened by using multiple cases. It also provides substantial analytic benefits comparing to a single case study (ibid). Gillham (2000) states that multiple sources of evidence are a "key characteristic of case study research" because "all evidence is of some use to the case study researcher: nothing is turned away” (Gillham 2000, p. 20).

Every case in this study was initiated through innovation built on digitalization, albeit differently. These initiatives were in different phases, from prior to launch, in operation and discontinued projects. Studying these allowed the gain of an overview of different levels of success as well as strategic plans and process development. This information, used as a foundation for the study, was further analyzed generating conclusions and contributions.

The cases were chosen to gain this holistic understanding of different projects within the company.

Each case will be considered as its own study, in which convergent facts is sought in order to provide conclusions for the case. The other cases will then need to replicate those conclusions in order to be viable (Gillham, 2000). This is where themes and circumstances are important to consider in order to determine general conclusions and identify anomalies influencing a specific situation (Denscombe, 2010), further discussed in section 3.4. If analytic conclusions can be proven using cases that are similar but under varied circumstances, they will have immeasurably increased the external generalizability of the findings (Yin, 2003).

Even though the four projects constitute the majority of the gathered information and were the main focus in the study, we chose not to limit ourselves to only discussing these when we came across the opportunity of valuable information in connection to other projects.

This arose when the case company’s employees found an interest in our thesis and willingly shared information informally, or approached us wanting to share their thoughts and experiences.

We also chose not to limit us to only completed or launched projects, as this would restrict us to only ”successful” projects and potentially hinder important information which could be found in projects that for different reasons were discontinued or where information regarding its future is uncertain.

3.3. Literature review

In order to gain a deeper understanding of the field, a literature review was carried out in this study. This theoretical foundation is a crucial component of research that justifies the chosen approach and demonstrates its contribution (Ellis & Levy, 2006, Collins & Hussey, 2009). The theoretical insights gained from this review has been used to analyze and discuss empirical data in order to reach conclusions in the study.

3.3.1. Literature overview

The literature review consists of academic material, such as published academic papers as well as reports, information gained from the case company and other trusted organizations.

In order to allow usage of non-academical sources and deem them as trustworthy, a critical discussion regarding both statements and source was conducted with the studies supervisors. Peer-reviewed literature from academic journals has been the main foundation of the theoretical data in order to ensure the quality of the knowledge (Ellis & Levy, 2006).

Information gained outside of academia has been separately audited in order to gain relevant and unbiased information. The literature used in this study has undergone three steps of assortment; an input stage including a systematic selection of the literature, a processing stage based on a framework by Denscombe (2017) followed by an output stage where information has been meticulously selected, summarized and retold.

Written materials gained from the case company was mainly supplied by our supervisor from the company. This material is mainly tied to the four cases which this study examines but also includes general information regarding organization and strategies. This information has been used to establish scope boundaries and acts as theoretical background for the different cases. It has also been used as material for interviews, creating questions, structure and discussions regarding results.

At a smaller scale, non-academical literature has been used to substantiate discussions and arguments. While these sources can be questioned in terms of reliability (Denscombe, 2017) they have been thoroughly audited and discussed in order to avoid a validity loss. No non-academic literature has been used unless it correlates to academical findings and usage of this data is separately discussed past its statement.

The qualitative data, gathered in the literature review has then been examined through a multi-step process based on ”The five-step model of data analysis” presented by Denscombe (2010 p. 240), see section 3.6.

3.3.2. Literature phases

In order to collect sufficient literature, the research has been an ongoing process throughout the study (Collins and Hussey 2009). Though besides the recurrent sporadic searches, the research has undergone two major phases connected to the workflow of the interviews. The first phase was conducted prior to the first interview phase with the main goal of creating fundamental knowledge within the field. During this phase, literature searches were conducted freely, thus without the use of specific search tools. Neglecting these provides problems regarding repeatability and validity (Aylward et al., 2012), which were acknowledged and deemed acceptable. We considered free searches as a proper method to use in order to collect the broad knowledge requested, despite its shortcomings in repeatability. A more structural approach would have been accompanied by restrictions in search results or demanded an extensive pre-study which time limitations didn’t favor.

The lack of repeatability in this phase was later complemented by a second more extensive and structured phase, upholding the necessary validity for the qualitative data in the report.

Gathered information from this phase was used to elaborate the background of the study and acquire necessary knowledge as preparation for the first interview phase. Acting as foundation for questions, interview approach and study context.

The second phase was executed as a theoretical inductive study, searching for qualitative data in the area of the research. During this phase, multiple tools were used in order to create repeatability and validity to the study. These tools can be found in section 3.3.3. The second phase was initialized after the first interview phase was conducted. This phase was the major research phase where the majority of the data was gathered. Data collected from the second phase, combined with previous and sporadical findings constitute the theoretical data used for discussion and further analysis. This phase was conducted as a