Primary Data Collection

In addition to the secondary data, interviews that serve as the primary data source were conducted. Direct observation was adopted as well.

3.2.2.1 Selection of Case

The selection of a case is not determined by the number of cases, but by the level of saturation of information and data the cases can produce. To answer the research questions of “why” and “how” two industry players in Taiwan’s MICE industry perform exceptionally well, the context of this research is the MICE industry in Taiwan. As reported earlier in the second chapter, the core segments of this industry consist of venues, PCO’s and PEO’s. The MICE industry also involves peripheral subcontractors from the T&I industry, hospitality industry, publishing industry, transportation industry, etc. (see Figure 2.2). Since the study attends to superior performance at the firm level across this industry, the research scope is limited to high-performers in the industry. One professional conference organiser (hereafter referred to as Firm A) and one translation vendor (hereafter referred to as Firm B) were selected as the two study cases that have achieved a lock-in position (Johnson and Scholes, 2002). They have stayed in business for slightly more than a decade with their value offerings becoming industry

standards. The purpose of selecting two cases is to see if the findings of one firm are replicated by the other case and maybe other industry players in the MICE industry.

3.2.2.2 Interview

Yin (2003) noted that the interview is one of the most important sources of case study information because it keeps researchers on track when pursuing the line of inquiry and at the same time allowed for new ideas not directly linked to questions posed, yet important to consider. In this study, semi-structured

interviews with open-ended questions were designed and conducted as the source of evidence. There were a total of 21 interviews which were recorded on an MP3 device with the consent of the interviewees.

The in-depth interviews, using semi-structured questions, enabled the researcher to investigate issues closely related to research questions, to identify interviewees’ complementary comments and refine the direction of the interview questions simultaneously. The interviews remained conversational, which was conducive to building rapport between the interviewer and the interviewees and to encouraging self-revelation. To clear up any misunderstandings and

misinterpretation, explanations, clarification, and examples were given, and follow-up questions were directed toward some interesting statements made by interviewees.

3.2.2.3 Research Participants

To elicit information about what key resources and valuable relationships with stakeholders a firm has, key informants were sought for because they are knowledgeable about the organisation. Also, their position in the firm and

knowledge enables them to observe and generalise about patterns of phenomena (Siedler, 1974). As a result, the employers, also the founders, of the said firms were first interviewed since they know the operations of the firms better than anyone else.

It is, however, noteworthy that researchers should be careful not to overly rely on a key informant. In order to double check the data derived from the key-informant interviews, three employees from Firm A and six employees from Firm B were randomly selected to share their opinions about the firms’ industrial relations. The same technique was applied to elicit supplier’s ideas about their relationships with the two firms. For the purpose of cross-case synthesis in the next chapter, the research focused the supplier subjects on three freelance interpreters (Firm A) and three freelance translators (Firm B). Moreover, to scrutinize whether suppliers of the two firms were aware of the reasons that their offerings were valued, and hence, the exchange continued to exist, senior project managers were interviewed to verify their criteria for selecting suppliers.

As for the investigation into customer relationships, due to the consideration of the industry code of practice and a deep concern for confidentiality, both firms were unable to provide information about their clients. Data from both firms’

customers were, therefore, limited. Only one of Firm B’s clients was willing to be interviewed by telephone, and an industry expert was invited, as an objective source of evidence, to verify the customer relationships of the studied cases and the claimed excellent performance.

The invited expert is Mr. Thomas Tsou, the Secretary General of the Taiwan

Convention and Exhibition Association, which was founded in 1991 with the purpose of establishing an effective supply chain for the MICE industry. The association promotes cooperation between the government and industry players and provides professional assistance in hosting exhibitions, conventions, and events. Mr. Tsou worked at the Taiwan External Trade Development Council for 28 years and was stationed in Germany to assist Taiwanese businesses in

participating in and promoting goods and services at the international exhibitions there. As Rubin and Rubin indicated (see Clulow et al., 2007), although a

carefully selected expert interviewee cannot be considered a single case, his views and insights can truly reflect the standpoints of a group of specific experts.

The purpose of gathering evidence on an aspect of an issue from a variety of sources is to prevent biased testimonies and hence heighten credibility and confirmability.

Table 3.1 Background Information of Interview Participants

Code Position/Department Gender Time of Interview

AR1 Employer of Firm A M 2009/04/06

BR1 Employer of Firm B M 2009/04/13

AE1 HR Department (Firm A ) F 2009/05/19

AE2 Tech Support (Firm A) M 2009/05/19

AE3 Congress Rental Business Unit (Firm A) M 2009/05/19 BE1 Accounting Department (Firm B) F 2009/05/11 BE2 HR Department (Firm B) F 2009/05/11 BE3 Publishing Department (Firm B) F 2009/05/11

BE4 Tech Support (Firm B) M 2009/05/11

BE5 Editor (Firm B) F 2009/05/11

BE6 Project Manager (Firm B) F 2009/05/11 AS1 Freelance Interpreter (Firm A) M 2009/06/02 AS2 Freelance Interpreter (Firm A) M 2009/06/03 AS3 Freelance Interpreter (Firm A) M 2009/06/05 BS1 Freelance Translator (Firm B) M 2009/05/24 BS2 Freelance Translator (Firm B) M 2009/05/24 BS3 Freelance Translator (Firm B) M 2009/05/25 AX1 Industry Expert

(Proxy for Client of Firm A)

M 2009/06/04

BC1 Client of Firm B F 2009/06/12

APM1 Project Manager (Firm A) F 2009/06/10 BPM1 Project Manager (Firm B) F 2009/06/10

*The alphabetic codes represent stakeholders at different positions in Firm A and Firm B. “A” means Firm A; “B” means Firm B. “R” means employer, whereas “E” means employee. “S” represents supplier, and “C” and “X” refer to customer and the industry expert. “PM” refers to project manager.