In this stage, qualitative content analysis was used to encode and analyse data.
As indicated by White and Marsh (2006), the focus of qualitative coding is not ‘a priori codes.’ The emphasis of qualitative content analysis is to answer the research questions, and data analysis has started during the process of coding. Researchers shall strive to see the big picture out of amorphous patterns or concepts by tagging key phrases and text segments that answer the questions previously asked and comparing categories of data over and over again in hope of finding alternative perspectives. Emerging perspectives result in researchers refining patterns tested or phenomenon studied. This is the so-called constant comparison approach (White and Marsh, 2006, p. 37). Unlike quantitative content analysis, the important criterion for coding of qualitative content analysis is not about the number of codes which coders reach, but the conceptual consistency between observation and conclusions.
As a result, the interview data were interpreted at different levels of detail, mainly at the individual level within two firms. Based on the literature on RBV and social exchange theory, the researcher collated interview data into broad themes in the first level of data processing. Some of the interviewees’ comments that addressed questions in one section were in fact concerned with those in another, so they were redirected to the most relevant section. Examples cited by participants to illustrate their views were identified and placed under the themes considered pertinent. The data in each theme were examined closely to ascertain whether they lent support for the applicability of the theoretical perspectives in order to provide reference for
existing actors in and potential entrants to the convention and exhibition market. The researcher remained open to opinions and ideas outside the broad theoretical themes that were likely to provide insight into the interplay between key resources and social exchanges and SCA and superior performance. Figure 3.2 shows the data collection process
Figure 3.2 Data Collection Process
Based on the literature reviewed, dimensions of firm resources and those used to measure industrial relations, firm-supplier, and firm-customer relationships were established prior to the interviews. After all the interviews and transcription were
Dimensions against
Transcribing Interviews and Refining Dimensions
carried out, the predetermined classifications and dimensions were compared and contrasted with the interview data.
According to the interview texts transcribed from the in-depth interviews with the two employers, their comments on firm relationships with employees, customers, and suppliers corresponded to the research questions, but also generated other patterns.
The predetermined dimensions that were obtained from the literature review to evaluate industrial relations included trust, reciprocity by means of HRM policy on the organisation’s side and effort level on the employees’ side, respect, and
communication. New categories that resulted from the interview data were injustice and commitment (see Table 3.5).
The same above-mentioned procedure was repeated to identify new perspectives regarding suppliers and customers. As for the relationships with suppliers, the only category added was, in fact, more relevant to the organisational culture, which is concerned with the capabilities of a firm (see Tables 3.6). No new categories were found in terms of the dimensions used to measure firm-customer relationships. The dimensions are listed in Table 3.8.
Chapter Four Case Study Analysis
This chapter reports on the results of the analysis of the two cases in five separate sections including a company profile of Firm A, case analysis of Firm A, a company profile of Firm B, case analysis of Firm B, and cross-case analysis. The data analysis of Firm A and Firm B as well as cross-case analysis is presented under two major headings: key resources and social exchanges of the studied cases.
4.1 Company Profile of Firm A
Established in 1991, Firm A is a professional conference organiser in the MICE industry in Taiwan. With the number of employees of between ninety to one hundred, it has organically expanded into seven business units all focusing on conference and event related services, and it is now a corporate group. The establishment of the seven business units took place at different times to respond to changes in market demand.
All of its business units cannot be named in deference to their wish to remain anonymous. The services that Firm A’s business units offer range from congress and meeting management, congress equipment rental and language services, conference venue rental, management of corporate meetings and incentives, event-related design, congress equipment, and conference takeaways production. The wide range of
services such as budgeting, on-site registration, coordination and installation of audio visual equipment, etc. enables the company to provide its vast client base, covering public and private corporate sectors to international associations, with a ‘one-stop shopping’ solution.
*BU stands for business unit.
Figure 4.1 Organisation Structure Chart of Firm A
Although Firm A has seven business units, this study placed more emphasis on BU2 (as illustrated in Figure 4.1) because one major part of its businesses is
conference interpreting and translation of conference-related materials, which allows the data derived from this business unit to be analysed on a cross-case basis. Having had operated in the MICE industry in Taiwan since 1991, Firm A has already
accumulated substantial market knowledge and gained experience in assisting clients in organising corporate meetings, international association conferences, events, and incentive travels. In fact, the employer of Firm A had been thinking about integrating language services along with conference equipment hire and have offered either one or combined services since day one. Seven years later, the employer decided to invest extensively in cutting-edge convention equipment. In 1998, BU2 was run as a
business unit and established officially in 2000, eight years after the establishment of BU1.
By the time Firm A entered the convention equipment rental market, there were few competitors operating in the form of business organisations. The convention equipment rental services enabled Firm A to become one of the very few PCO’s in Taiwan that are equipped with a variety of conference equipment, so that BU2 quickly established itself as a first mover in the field. The clients of BU2 need not go further in search of interpreters and translators on one hand and audio-visual and conference equipment on the other.
Due to the confidential nature of financial data, Firm A could not disclose revenue figures. Since financial data could not be obtained directly from the firm, another proxy adopted in this research to measure and to verify the company’s performance objectively is the awards it has received from the government. Firm A has won awards for excellence in conference and event organising presented by the Department of Commerce of Ministry of Economic Affairs for five years in a row.