We have described a research case and the main actions taken to fulfil the research objectives and, to conclude, we present some thoughts regarding what we did and the lessons we learned.
The interviews were extremely valuable in allowing us to detect patterns and move beyond the limited goal of simple description. That is, while the data gathered from the interviews provided some interesting examples to support the findings of the telephone based survey, it also showed core patterns relating human and organisational behaviour with benefit realisation. These patterns were important because they allowed us to engage in further exploration of the quantitative data through the use of sophisticated data mining statistical techniques.
Going beyond description is one of the most important and powerful aspects of grounded theory. We feel that while more could have been achieved in this regard, we were able to detect important concepts and their interrelationships in such a way that it was possible to present a theory. For example, the comparison of concepts across qualitative and quantitative data resulted in the identification of three core concepts that we used to explain the relationship between ICT, organisation and management and the way in which it contributes to productivity, organisational transformation and establishing sustainable competitive advantage (Gregor et al., 2005).
The study had a number of limitations. Non-response bias may have influenced the results. However, we have no direct evidence of non-response bias and the use of industry best practice standards by SRG in conducting the survey assisted in reducing the non-response bias to the minimum possible in such circumstances. Yet, the patterns observed ‘worked’ in the studied substantive field, and concerns regarding non-response bias are arguable from the classic grounded theory perspective since the unexpressed concerns of indifferent or unsuccessful managers would only add another dimension to the study rather than negate the validity of the findings in the studied substantive field.
Another issue with this study relates to its depth. This was accepted as a limitation of scope and time imposed by the organisation that commissioned the study. However, by adopting a grounded theory approach we were able to produce meaningful results in a short period of time and also to provide the foundations for a second study to extend the theory.
Before the study, the team thought that a diverse research team could work together cohesively by following a grounded theory approach. However, it was through our research actions that we found answers to questions such as:
Is it possible for grounded theory techniques and principles to contribute to other approaches?
Are these principles and techniques flexible enough?
Is this approach efficient enough to meet the deadline?
Is the approach effective enough to meet expectations of relevance?
We now believe that the answer to these questions is yes. In doing the research we gained understanding of our team strengths and complementary skills, discovered key synergies between our qualitative and quantitative team components, and developed further research capabilities. This approach can work successfully for us; it enhances our team’s capabilities to both gain access to grants and to produce research that is rigorous and relevant to our target community.