ANALYSIS OF THE IN-DEPTH INTERVIEW (SECOND STAGE)

In order to present and analyze the findings that emerged from the collected qualitative data, a three-fold analytical interest is in order. The first area is related to the factors that influence the respondents to make a selection in favor of foreign or local staff, according the respondents’ selections made in the interview questionnaire (FIRST STAGE). The second area of interest is what variables moderate the factors that later influenced the respondents to make a selection in favor of foreign or local staff or change the choice they made in the interview questionnaire (FIRST STAGE).The third and last area focuses on how the respondents compare the service quality between foreign and local UPWS staff by use of the framework by Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1985). (PS > ES = Quality of the delivered service). I investigated the research framework in Chapter 3.2 and placed the international staff allocation strategy (ISAS/SAS) and their factors and variables in the right positions.

Which factors influencing customers to make selection in favor of foreign or local UPWS staff?

The respondents mostly agree that the three factors asked in the interview/questionnaire

(communication/language problems, work performance, and cultural differences) influenced them to make a selection in favor of foreigners or local UPWS staff. If I asked the importance of each factor or which influenced them more, then all respondents put the work performance (technical skill) on the beginning.

Knowledge, work experience, and work performance were more important than the

communication problems or cultural differences; these can be solved easily. (Senior Engineer)

Communication/language problems and cultural differences are also important but not a first priority like technical skill, work performance, knowledge, and work experience. (Facility Manager)

The UPWS staff must have work experience, technical skill, and guaranty the stability of the water quality. (Section Manager)

Pie Chart Case A 01 and Case B 02

Made selection in favor of foreign or local UPWS staff focused on work performance (FIRST STAGE)

For the factor communication/language problems, most of the respondents explained that communication problems can handled much more easily than cultural differences because they know how to solve communication problems with the use of a translator/interpreter, by writing in English on a small paper during communication with a foreigner, or by using technical documentation to explain what they want or expect from the foreigner. All of these influence them more if the foreigner cannot speak English well.

Communication/language can easy be solved with a translator or with help of another operator of my company who can speak better English then myself if we have problems understanding each other. (Facility Manager)

Here also the factor communication/language problems is supported not only by the in-depth interview but also through the interview questionnaire (Case A and Case B) in which the respondents made

selection in favor of foreign or local UPWS staff focused on Communication/Language problem. In Case B, the respondents voted more toward making a selection in favor of foreign or local UPWS staff focused on communication/language problems compared with Case A. See Pie chart 03 and 04.

Pie Chart Case A 03 and Case B 04

Made selection in favor of foreign or local UPWS staff focused on Communication/Language Problems (FIRST STAGE)

On the factor cultural differences, the respondents were not so much aware that some cultural dimensions as included future orientation, assertiveness orientation, and human orientation. Thus, for some

respondents, it was difficult to make a selection in favor of foreign or local staff. The consequence is then that they chose more “factor cultural differences are not the only consideration to make a selection.” If the respondents would have known or understood deeper the cultural differences, it would have had a positive influence on the respondents in that they would have considered more the factor cultural differences for selecting in favor of foreign or local UPWS staff.

If I would get this information earlier about cultural differences between Taiwan and Europe or in my latest case with an American citizen, then I could use it to plan better the project and see earlier where I would get a problem on the cultural aspects and then maybe I would switch from the beginning to a local…I am aware of some cultural differences such as

individualism/collectivism or power distance, but that is most what I know and in my latest case it was maybe not enough. (Facility Manager)

I can see the differences between local and foreign staff in their technical skill, and I can solve the communication/language problems easily, but if it comes to cultural differences, I would have a problem to find a good solution to solve these differences. (Senior Engineer)

Pie Chart Case A 05 and Case B 06

Made selection in favor of foreign or local UPWS staff focused on Cultural Differences (FIRST STAGE)

In the interview questionnaire, some respondents stated another factor that would influence them to make a selection in favor of foreign or local UPWS staff. In the in-depth interview, five of the respondents with over eight years of work experience put the work performance as the new factor at the same level of importance: BEHAVIOR/ATTITUDE.

According my work experience over several years with foreign or local staff, if they have the same knowledge skill and good work experience/performance, I see the difference between them more on their behavior or attitude, and in this, the foreigner is stronger (more willingness to listen, to work longer, solve the problem quickly and to my satisfaction). (Senior Engineer)

One of the five also stated the same but had already the experience between the foreign and local regarding differences in behavior and attitude.

By one project we were very unhappy with a foreign UPWS staff because his behavior and attitude was unacceptable but his technical knowledge and skill were good compared with the locals. Later we requested to have another UPWS foreign staff member (different country as the first one) and he had also the work performance and skill for this project but his behavior and attitude were much righter. By similar projects, I would choose the foreigner (second one) of this country compared to the first UPWS foreigner. (Facility Manager)

Another explained at which time the factor behavior/attitude becomes more important and what it means for him.

If local and foreign staff have the same work performance, technical skill, and knowledge, and the price differences between them is minimum, then I’m looking more on their

behavior/attitudes focus on the work that they have to do. It is important that the service staff can first listen to us and then understand our concern, fear (stable water quality, no stop of the water production), and what we think. Second, he should give us recommendation, suggestions, and show willingness to solve the problem and help us. A person that can make good decision also under stress and time pressure. He should show us confidence that the problems can be solved.

(Facility Manager)

If the respondents were asked what they understand under behavior/ attitude or if they can explain it more clear what they mean, then most of them stated following:

• Willingness to work till the problem is solved or the project finish

• Take the responsibility to lead and support with recommendation for to make a decisions

• Concern the customers priority (water quality, quick and easy problem solving, and price)

• Recommendation for future modification or training

Work performance, communication/language problems, cultural differences, and new behavior/attitude are factors that influence the respondents when making a selection in favor of foreign or local UPWS staff. Some factors influence the customers more and some less. In once case, if respondents would have had proper information, it might have influenced them in a positive way when selecting between foreign or local UPWS staff in the case of cultural differences.

The first three factors (work performance, communication/language problems, and cultural differences) are supported with findings by the interview questionnaire but also during the in-depth interview. The fourth factor of behavior/attitude is only supported by the in-depth interview of the 17 in-depth interview respondents.

Which variables are moderating the factors that influence customers to make selection in favor of foreign or local UPWS staff?

Already in the interview questionnaire, I put a possible variable that could moderate the respondent’s decision in making selecting in favor of foreign or local UPWS staff by Case A (extremely important project) and Case B (less important project). The variable was: Importance of the Project/Work/Service.

be interrupted. If the project/work or service is nearer the end user (loop) then it is more important to be aware of this point.

I have to guaranty that there will be always a stable water quality. To guaranty this, I am willing to pay more money to get the best service and the best man for this important work. (Section Manager)

This section manager brings more then one variable out. One variable was used by the interview questionnaire (importance of the project/work/service), the second variable is the stability of the water quality, and the last variable, “price of the service,” was later also used in the in-depth interview. In the in-depth interview, I asked the respondents what their choice would be if they had to consider the importance of the project and also the price differences (the foreigner costs twice as much as the local).

Here are the results.

Table 5.3: Made Selection in Favor of Foreign or Local UPWS Staff/17 In-Depth Interview Respondents (SECOND STAGE) with Two Variable

Made Selection in Favor of

Foreign or Local UPWS Staff COMMUNICATION WORK PERFORMANCE

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES Case A (important project and

price differences) 12 (70.6%) 13 (76.5%) 12 (70.6%)

Case A (important project) 11 (64.7%) 13 (76.5%) 9 (52.9%)

Case B (important project and

price differences) 16 (94.1%) 16 (94.1%) 15 (88.2%)

Case B (not important project) 12 (70.6%) 14 (82.4%) 8 (47.1%)

Focus on price differences price F >> price L; compare with the FIRST STAGE results (no price differences)

If the respondent has to consider the Importance of the Project and the Price Differences of the Service (the foreign staff costs twice as much as the local), then the respondents shifted their choice in Case A more in favor of foreign or local (except for the factor work performance) and for Case B there was a greater shift in favor of foreign or local UPWS staff.

Next, if we split the numbers in both Cases A and B (with two variables: importance of the project and price differences) into the part of foreigner and local and compare it with the numbers in the Case A and B (with one variable: importance of the project), then we can see in Case B with two variables an increase on the choice for the local UPWS staff by all three factors.

Table 5.4: Made Selection in Favor of Foreign or Local UPWS Staff, 17 In-Depth Interview

Respondents (SECOND STAGE) with Two Variables (Detail between foreign and local UPWS staff)

Made Selection in Favor of Foreign or Local UPWS Staff

COMMUNICATION WORK

PERFORMANCE

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES Foreigner Local Foreigner Local Foreigner Local Case A (important project and

price differences) Case A (important project) 7

(41.2%) Case B (important project and

price differences) Case B (not important project) 3

(17.6%)

Focus on price differences price F >> price L; compare with the FIRST STAGE results (no price differences)

Importance of the project/work or service, price differences between foreign and local staff, and stability of the water quality are variables that moderate the factors (work performance, cultural differences, and communication/language problems) that later influence the respondents to make a selection in favor of foreign or local UPWS staff.

During the in-depth interview, many respondents stated that they use also the work experience that they had in the past with the UPWS company or with different UPWS providers that moderate the factors.

With my work experience over 10 years, I know what they can deliver and what not. In addition, I see which UPWS staff key engineer has the ability to deal and handle the project to our

satisfaction. If he is still working for this company, I will choose him again if he can guaranty the water quality. (Facility Manager)

First, I will use my work experience that I got during the work with the different UPWS staff members. If there is a new member, I will use my contacts with other facility engineers to get more information of the new UPWS member before I consider making a selection for the key engineer. (Senior Engineer)

To get more information of the UPWS staff (new member), if data are not available from our

Some variables in combination will moderate the factors more and some less. In the end, the respondents make more a clear selection between foreign or local UPWS staff. During the analysis of the in-depth interview about the variables, I saw that all variables could be ordered into the three groups that were already mentioned in the research by Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1985) or in the modified framework that focuses on B2B in the service industry (see Diagram 1.3).

Table 5.5: Variables That Moderate the Factors in Making Selection in Favor of Foreign or Local UPWS Staff and Classification into groups (SECOND STAGE)

Variables of the In-Depth Interview Classification into Groups According to Zeithaml, Berry, and Parasuraman (1985)

Work Experience PAST EXPERIENCE

Reputation of the UPWS staff foreign or

local WORD OF MOUTH

Stability of the water quality

PERSONAL/COMPANY NEEDS Price differences between foreigner and

local

Importance of the project/work or service

The variable “Importance of the Project/Work/Service” is supported with the findings of the Case A and Case B by the interview questionnaire but also during the in-depth interview. The variable “Price Differences” in combination of the importance of the project is supported during the in-depth interview.

The other three variables (work experience, reputation, and stability of the water quality) are only supported by the in-depth interview of the 17 in-depth interview respondents.

Compare Service Quality between Foreign and Local UPWS Staff (ES versus PS)

In the in-depth interview, the respondents were asked how they evaluated the service quality of the foreign or local UPWS staff and to reveal what kind of system and factors/variables they use for this. I showed them the research framework (Diagram 3.2). In general, all respondents supported the view of the research framework. During the in-depth interview with the respondents, most of them found that there was also a feedback flow (information flow) from the comparison between ES and PS (quality of service) to the moderator variables and to the ISAS/SAS self. This feedback information flow will increase their work/past experience and word of mouth (reputation), which will also be stored in the company’s database for future work or evaluation of the UPWS company or staff, and for the SAS, it gives feedback regarding whether the decision to assign this UPWS staff was right or if the company needs to assign another UPWS staff next time. Here some comments about the feedback flow:

I understand this framework, but I’m missing the line that goes back to ISAS/SAS after the comparison between ES and PS (positive or negative results) that helps us then to see if our decision was right or not. We need a confirmation for future assignments. (Manager)

After the work or project is done, our company policy is that we have to hand over a report related to the finished project that includes also the evaluation of the company and their staff that delivered the service to us and to store all information for future projects or warranty clams. For my part, I will get also more work experience with the UPWS company and their staff. (Senior Engineer)

If we deliver very good service to our customers (more then they expected), then it will also increase our reputation as a leading Ultra Pure Water Service Company in this service industry mainly through our customers. I have seen and heard of many other service companies that struggle with bad reputations over long time before they have a chance again by the customers.

Therefore, a backflow of information should go back to the moderator variables from the comparison between ES and PS. (Manager)

The final research framework of the international staff allocation strategy ISAS/SAS (interactive quality, WHO) represent how the factors and moderator variables influence one in making a selection in favor of foreign or local UPWS staff. See Diagram 5.1.

UPWS company CUSTOMER

Behavior/Attitude Communication Cultural Differences Work Performance

MODERATING VARIABLES