LLC: A Case Study of Organizational Learning at EDS

Chapter Three, Research Methods

In Search of the Story

---

A case study methodology was chosen as the primary method for completing this research. Case study methodology provides the necessary tools and framework for describing what happened and analyzing a specific situation. Robert Yin describes case study applications as follows: 14 "There are at least five different applications. The most important is to explain the causal links in real-life interventions that are too complex for the survey or experimental strategies. In evaluation language, the explanations would link program implementation with program effects. A second application is to describe an intervention and the real-life context in which it occurred. Third, case studies can illustrate certain topics within an evaluation, again in a descriptive mode--even from a journalistic perspective. Fourth, the case study strategy may be used to explore those situations in which the intervention being evaluated has no clear, single set of outcomes. Fifth, the case-study may be a meta-evaluation--a study of an evaluation study." The first four of these case study applications are germane to the LLC project studied at EDS. Information for this thesis was obtained primarily through personal interviews and on-site observation. The research framework applied to this case study of the LLC pilot included specific focus on the historical context of the project, strategy formulation, the selection process used to identify participating units and individuals, the preparation process for the individuals or groups directly impacted by the LLC pilot, the actual implementation process and the resultant outcomes. During the course of the research several other themes such as sustainability, risk and leadership involvement were also explored.

---

Research Plan

We felt it critical to our research that the afore mentioned segments of the project be understood from the perspective of individuals in the EDS organization at various levels of responsibility, ranging from the individual performer level to upper-level management. We identified four levels within the EDS hierarchy that were built into our data collection strategy. These four levels are 1) Executives, 2) Managers, 3) Specialists and 4) Subordinates. The Executive level included people at the level of Strategic Business Unit President or Strategic Service Unit Director and other high level managers that served as champions during the LLC process. Managers encompassed employees with decision making and supervisory responsibilities who were peers of the LLC participants. The specialist category was comprised of individuals that had been actual LLC participants. All of the participants we interviewed had achieved a manager level. The subordinate category is reserved for employees that reported directly to the LLC participant. Some members of this group had management responsibility and others were individual performers. An attempt was made to not only interview the LLC participant, but also individuals surrounding the participant from a reporting hierarchy, including peers, subordinates and supervisors. Based on this variety of perspectives we hoped to gain a broader view of what actually happened. There were a few individuals that crossed two categories, i.e. a manager that served as a champion. These individuals were placed with the group that we felt was most appropriate.

As we held our initial discussions with EDS it became apparent that a proper study of LLC would require analysis of different sectors of the EDS organization. The scope of this project was mutually agreed to by EDS and the researchers (us) and was established to include a general discussion with the Leadership Development Strategic Service Unit (SSU) and a more detailed review of the process from the perspective of two Strategic Business Units (SBU): North American Vehicle Platforms (NAVP) and Health Care. The Leadership Development SSU is a service group within EDS that has primary responsibility for developing action plans and training for organizational learning, leadership development and transformation. The two SBU's have total operating responsibility in North America for their respective areas of business.

The structured thesis requirements, as established by G. Roth, Research Director, MIT Center for Organization Learning, identified the research segments and employee levels to be included in the research methodology. Figure 1, shown below, depicts the framework used in this case study.

Figure 1

Position	Historical Context	Strategy Formulation	Selection	Preparation	Implementation	Outcomes
Executive
Manager
Specialist
Subordinate

Given that our study was focused on two SBU's and one SSU we needed to interview employees at each level from each unit. Our final interview schedule included thirty-two EDS employees. There was a six-member team of employees from NAVP that participated in the LLC program and we interviewed five of the six participants. In the Health Care SBU, we interviewed the entire team of three LLC participants. A matrix of interviewees is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2

	Leadership Development	North American Vehicle Programs	Health Care
Executives	2	1	2
Managers	1	3	2
LLC Participants	4	5	3
Subordinates	1	6	2

---

Data Collection

A set of questions was developed that served as the basis for each interview. The questions specifically focused on the research categories. The list of interview questions can be found in Appendix "A". The questions expanded in scope as issues for further investigation surfaced as a result of interview responses. The interviewee did not receive a copy of the questionnaire before or during the interview. Each interview lasted from one hour to two and a half hours. Interviews were conducted either face to face (twenty-three interviews) or via telephone (nine interviews) if a physical meeting could not be arranged due to geographic location. All interviews were conducted in conference rooms or private offices at the home site of the EDS employee. The majority of the interviews were completed during the middle two weeks of January. We spent a week in Plano, Texas at the main EDS offices interviewing members of the Leadership Development SSU and Health Care SBU. Telephone interviews were conducted with Health Care SBU employees located in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, Richmond, Virginia, Sacramento and San Francisco, California and with a Leadership Development SSU participant now assigned to Europe. The NAVP SBU interviews were conducted in Detroit, Michigan during our second week of interviewing. Again, telephone conferences for individuals in Lordstown, Ohio and Toronto, Canada were required.

Both researchers were present during each interview, with one serving as the recorder and the other conducting the interview. At the conclusion of each interview, the recorder would have the opportunity to ask additional questions for clarification of material presented by the interviewee. All interviews were taped after permission by the interviewee had been granted. An "Interview Summary", which captured the main content of the interview, was compiled from each meeting. This summary was not a full transcript, however, important comments were recorded verbatim. The researchers prepared these summaries from the notes they took during each interview as well as listening to the recording from each interview. The "Interview Summary" was returned to the interviewee for editing for accuracy and proprietary issues. Revisions made by the interviewee were then incorporated in the "Interview Summary". Revisions were primarily to clarify statements as opposed to adding entirely new thoughts or making deletions. Additionally, a complete set of "Interview Summaries" was requested by a member of the Leadership Development Unit. Permission to provide EDS with a copy was requested from each interviewee and granted in all cases.

In addition to the interviews, we spent a day at the main office of NAVP attending several meetings held within the SBU. Our role was that of observers. During the course of the day we viewed four different meetings. Some of the NAVP employees, we had previously interviewed, were in several of the meetings, but during the course of the day there was a wide range of levels and functional responsibilities that participated in the meetings we observed. The smallest meeting we attended had five members while the largest we observed had twenty-four members. We were able to watch the use of LLC tools in these four meetings. One meeting dedicated one and a half hours to LLC training for the entire staff.

As part of our research process, we also held an interview with Kofman, the originator of LLC. This interview led to a second meeting with Kofman for direct exposure to some of the concepts presented in LLC.

After the data was compiled, it was then coded utilizing coding processes described in Case Study Research 15 and Basics of Qualitative Research Appendix "B" provides a complete list of the categories utilized in the coding process.

---

Table of Contents | Previous topic | Top of Section | Next topic

---

Rules of the Game | Copyright | Site Map | FAQ | Contact Us

Recommended Browsers