Our
data analysis was guided by an interpretive approach that places
practitioners’ understanding of reality at the core of our study
[22]. We subscribe to the concepts proposed by Klein and Myers
[23], of which the hermeneutic circle is a central principle. The
hermeneutic circle helps to account for the interconnected meaning of
the parts (e.g., the understanding of the participants) and the whole
that they form (e.g., the meanings emerging from the interactions
between the parts). In our data analysis and sensemaking technique, we
adhere to this idea using an inductive–deductive approach. Our findings
highlight the interdependencies and PDs that exist in Company E, such as
synchronization debts, PDs resulting from interdependencies, and varied
and inappropriate procedures.
3.3 Step 3 – Cross-company focus
study
In order to validate our results and to gain additional insights from
the combined discussion across multiple companies, we conducted a group
interview where we reported our results and followed up with validatory
questions as well as additional exploratory questions.
The participants in the group interviews were a mix of previous
interviewees and additional process improvement experts from the
companies involved in phase 1. One of the purposes was to validate the
elaborate models and findings from phases 1 and 2.
In total, we involved ten interviewees from four companies, while three
researchers presented the results and asked additional questions. The
total interview time was three hours.
The
group interview was structured as follows. First, we had an introduction
of the participants and collected demographic information. Then, we
reported and explained the overall framework to define PD. During our
explanation, we gave the participants room to ask questions, clarify
issues with the model and suggest changes. During this part, we also
presented the types of PD revealed by our analysis. The purpose was to
validate our initial framework related to RQ1.
Then, we alternated the presentation of results and collection of
feedback on them, combining open discussions driven by the participants
with the anonymous and individual collection of closed answers using the
instant survey instrument Mentimeter. We then showed the results live
during the workshop and collected additional feedback.
In particular, this part was divided into the following three sub-parts:
1) Causes of PD: we showed our categorization of the causes and, after
discussion, we asked the question: “pick the three causes that generate
the most PD in your organization”. This way, we also managed to provide
a ranking of which causes seem to be the most common and if there are
differences across contexts (RQ 2.3)
2) Mitigation strategies: we showed our categorization of the mitigation
strategies for PD, and we asked the question: “pick the three
mitigation strategies that you are currently using the most in your
organization”. Then we also asked, “pick the three mitigation
strategies that you would like to apply at your organization”. These
two questions were asked to investigate the difference between the
current state of practice and the wanted position by the companies (also
useful to understand which mitigation strategies should be prioritized
by research) (RQ 3.2)
3) Consequences of PD: we showed our categorization of the causes for
PD, and we asked the question: “pick the three consequences that have
the most impact on your organization”. This question was asked to rank
the most impactful consequences of PD (RQ 2.5).