Figure of the whole population (Saunders et

Figure 5.2 The different research cycles of a case study and survey based on Steenhuis and Bruijn de (2006) Case study SurveyOrientation Usually qualitative oriented Usually quantitative orientedVariables Are often not predefined Are predefinedData collection Using structured and unstructured formats (Financial data, interviews, memoranda,questionnaires, organisation charts, etc.) Using a structured format (Questionnaire)Results In-depth examination of a phenomenonbut not a generalization Usually allows findings to be generalisedfrom the sample to the populationTable 5.

3 Main differences between case study and survey (Gimenez, 2005, p318)In contrast, a survey strategy (Fowler, 2002), is a cross-sectional (Johnson and Duberley, 2000; Aldridge and Levine, 2001) quantitative approach (Malhotra and Grover, 1998), which collects geographically scattered samples (Scudder and Hill, 1998; Quinlan, 2011), and thus, these are representative of the whole population (Saunders et al., 2007). It gives the flexibility and accessibility in terms of time and distance for evaluating the information from a wide range of respondents (Miller and Salkind, 2002; Mitchell and Jolley, 2010). Hence, a large sample size can be obtained which is crucial for a greater confidence in the generalisability of the outcomes.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

On the basis of abobe, this strategy (Figure 5.2 and Table 5.3) can be used to generalise a phenomenon (Bryman, 2004) on the basis of the descriptive characteristics of the samples (De Vaus, 2002; Babbie, 2004). Additionally, this strategy may also be applied to make comparisons across situations (Bryman, 2004), test patterns of association (Bryman, 1992), and determine particular relationships (De Vaus, 2002) by applying inferential statistics (Marczyk et al., 2005). The survey strategy involves the context of justification (Steenhuis and Bruijn, 2006), and so it is commonly applied for theory testing and theory extension (Meredith, 1998; Voss et al.

, 2002). From the options available, the survey strategy was selected to collect data from the shop floor employees in the selected case companies, since the objectives were to: 1) obtain a general description of the Kaizen implementation in Indo-Japanese joint ventures; and 2) test the hypotheses in the context of the causal relationships between the implementation of shop floor management tools and Kaizen.Data collection methodology in the survey strategyThere are many popular methods for survey strategy (e.g., Figure 5.3) to collate information for production management research (Zikmund et al.

, 2010). Interviews and questionnaires are the two primary methods (Forza, 2002) which have widely been used to collect data (Oppenheim, 1992).Figure 5.3 Forms of interviews and questionnaires, developed based on Saunders et al. (2007, p321 & p363)Saunders et al.,( 2007, pp318-360) opined that, an interview is “a purposeful discussion between two or more people”, on the other hand, a questionnaire is “a technique in which each respondent is asked to answer to the same set of questions in predetermined order”.

These two methods can be further divided into variety of ways (Figure 5.3). This may also have some overlap like the structured interviews and the interviewer- administered questionnaires (Oppenheim, 1992). These have their own advantages as well as disadvantages (e.g.

Table 5.4). So the decisions regarding the use of the methods should be based on the specific research (Forza, 2002).

Factors influencing coverage and secured information(‘1’ indicates the maximum strength, and ‘3’ the minimum) Non-standardised interviews(e.g., telephone survey) Standardised interviews (e.g., personal interview) Self-administered questionnaires (e.g., delivery &collection questionnaire)Theory building 2 3 1Theory verification 2 1 2Cost 2 1 3Response rate 2 1 3Accuracy of information 3 1 2Sample coverage (generalisability) 2 3 1Completeness 2 1 3Overall reliability and validity 3 1 2Time required to secureinformation 1 2 3Ease of securing information 2 3 1Anonymity of the data 2 1 3Respondents’ convenience 2 3 1Table 5.4 Comparison of data collection methods, developed based on Forza (2002, 167) For the purpose of the present research, a self-administered questionnaire was selected to collect data.

This method has at least 5 distinct characteristics: 1) it is commonly associated with the deductive approach (Saunders et al., 2007) and most suitable for the purpose of descriptive and theory-verification (Oppenheim, 1992); 2) it ensures anonymity of the data (Forza, 2002) and reduces interviewer bias 3) this method of data collection is direct and systematic (Forza, 2002) suitable for a large number of shop floor respondents; 4) it has large-scale accessibility (Miller and Salkind, 2002) and so it can be used effectively and simultaneously to collect data (Quinlan, 2011) from different case companies; and 5) it is a comparatively easy, quick and low-cost (McNeill and Chapman, 2005; Mitchell and Jolley, 2010).