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).