Using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to measure contract rules in complex project operations -poms 2013


Published on

research conference presentation in project management

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Add a better logo
  • Rather than an abstract, just include a presentation overview.
  • How many interviews do we actually have? Should mention this in the paper too!
  • I would either keep previous table or this figure. It ultimately shows the same.
  • This figure explain the essentials. Previous slide not needed.
  • Do we really need this?
  • I wonder if we need this and the following table. Both tables needed? rather focus on discussion/conclusions to get input.
  • No need for this table
  • delete
  • delete
  • I don’t think this slide is needed! to method heavy.
  • Simplify. I sometimes use red circles or highlight text
  • Using fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis to measure contract rules in complex project operations -poms 2013

    1. 1. Maria Kapsali & Jens Roehrich 043-0183 Using fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis to measure contract rules in complex project operations
    2. 2. Abstract How to use analytic induction and fuzzy-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fsQCA) To measure the effectiveness of contract rules in complex program operations fsQCA is useful to simultaneously explore deductively causal complexity of variable configurations in complex operations and exploit the richness of in-depth qualitative data
    3. 3. • We seek causal pathways to the same outcome, which may be achieved in different combinations of conditions, and that causation must be understood in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions • Complex causal connections (causal complexity) are analysed using Boolean logic to explain pathways to a particular outcome. Complex and multiple patterns of causation may be explored – statistical techniques assume that social phenomena are driven by unifinality, additivity, and symmetry, therefore it is difficult to model equifinal, conjunctural and asymmetric set relations in terms of sufficiency and necessity (Fiss, 2007: 1190) – qualitative (written and especially verbal) data formulations are largely set theoretic in nature (Fiss, 2007; Ragin 1987, 2009) we need to study cases inductively as configurations and not as independent, analytically separate settings to acquire measurements from
    4. 4. Why fsQCA (2) • Qualitative comparative analysis has the advantage that it may not require as many cases as a case survey. comparative research designs involve small and intermediate-size Ns (e.g., 5-50), but this range of cases is often too large for in-depth case analysis to retain patterns (analysis becomes too complicated), but also too few for conventional statistical techniques • It can be used with previously conducted studies as well as with new studies, and thus encourages an evolutionary and integrative approach to knowledge creation. It allows easy integration of both qualitative and quantitative forms of evidence, and is transparent and systematic • ‘fuzzy’ logic is a recent refinement of QCA so that it is not necessary to dichotomise variables so precisely and allows for more variation in set theoretic membership (continuous instead of binary) • Used in : sociology, psychology, political science and history
    5. 5. example Research design Research Question Which are the contract rules that successfully elicit compliant behaviour in programs? Methodology Retroduction based on Critical Realism (Downward, 2008: 314) Purpose Measure the characteristics of a social phenomenon Find generalized patterns of complex causality to develop theory and assert plausible contextualized explanations Instrumentation Qualitative multiple case studies (N=23) Data 120 in-depth, semi-structured interviews and 23 project contracts/evaluation reports Analysis (configurational) analysis of multiple conjuctural causality through fuzzy-set analysis (Ragin, 2008)
    6. 6. Contracting theories Type of studies Focus of studies Result Classical deductive modularity in contract structures incomplete Neo-Classical inductive arbitration, collaboration incomplete Relational trust, commitment, reputation, networks, relational ties etc incomplete combinations of factors, both modular and relational, into the causal mechanisms between rules and outcomes ? inductive Middle-way ? retroductive Our aim: the middle way – systemic contract
    7. 7. High level of complexity in transactions Diverse, autonomous actors with mixed interdependencies and timings Really unpredictable relations Mediation for conflict Long- term diverse relations Relational networks, trust, commitment irrational incentives Medium Stable short- term relations Rational incentives Easy prediction of behaviour Low Classical contracts Neo-classical + Relational contracts Middle way contracts ‘our study’
    8. 8. Fuzzy-set qualitative analysis in multiple case studies 1. Contract rules Classify rules Identify conditions and outcomes Build an analytic frame 2. Analysis Anchors, and thresholds 3. Interpretation of configurations 4.Conclusion Content analysis of case studies to assign values to conditions and outcomes Build truth table and retrieve configurations from the software Explain causal complexity between the conditions Look again into the cases (consistency and coverage) Compare and explain the configurations Suggest which are the successful results Select configurations with the highest significance (consistencycoverage) Minimize configurations Build a conceptual model
    9. 9. Classification of conditions – inductive approach for selecting Amenta and Poulsen (1994) and Yamasaki and Rihoux (2009) Linkage control rules to prevent opportunism Practical decision rules for generating all possible control responses Emancipatory autonomy rules formalization of action accountability rewards incentives obligations penalties - punishment exclusion fragmentation in supply chain standardization of tasks communication at the interfaces co-decision processes formal meetings, boards, panels, conferences evaluation, feedback loops overlap and sharing complement of skills negotiations regarding the definition of the goal, planning, monitoring and executing participation of users Rules that empower to selfregulate and self-organize knowledge creation coupling and interdependence adjust processes and habits leverage for change The rules in the contracts categorized into three conditions (Smith, 2006)
    10. 10. The analytic frame (conditions and outcomes) and with the fsQCA measure scale Analytic frame Conditions Outcomes Linkage rules Compliant (1) * Mostly compliant (0.75) Practical rules Ambiguous (0.50) * Insufficiently compliant (0.25) Emancipatory rules Non-compliant (0) fsQCA anchors 0 Not significant 0.25 0.50 0.75 less significant cross-over point mostly significant the point of maximum ambiguity 1 highly significant
    11. 11. Program PPP (6 projects) Nature Highly complex Duration Up to 30 years Description Multiple national projects for the construction of healthcare facilities Contract type Outcome Based non-standard contract Contract structure Highly complex IST/eTEN (14 projects) Medium to highly complex 18-36 months Multiple transnational projects for the creation and deployment of telemedicine Performance Based contract - Classical Medium to highly Complex EARSS (3 projects) Simple 6 years Multiple national projects for the creation of a European ICT epidemiology network Memorandum of agreement Highly relational – minimum critical specifications Simple
    12. 12. Linkage EARSS IST eTEN PPP 0.75 0.75 0.5 1 0.75 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.5 Practical 0.75 0.25 0.75 1 0.5 0.5 0.5 1 1 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.25 0.5 1 0.75 0.5 0.75 0.5 0.75 Emancipatory Outcome 0.75 0.75 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.5 0.5 0.25 0.5 0.75 0 0.25 0.25 0 0.25 0.25 1 0.5 1 0.75 1 0.25 0.75 0 0.25 0 1 0.75 0.5 0 1 0.25 0 0.25 0 1 0.5 1 0.75 Truth Table with the values of each condition for each project
    13. 13. The resulting configurations Within case configurations Positive Behaviour Significant minimized configurations consistency EARSS coverage combined ~linkage*~practical 1 0.200000 0.444972 practical 1 0.700000 0.832466 linkage*~practical*emancipatory 0.8 0.400000 0.565685 linkage*practical*~emancipatory 1 0.400000 0.629285 IST-eTEN ~linkage*emancipatory 1 0.038462 0.195133 ~linkage 1 0.038462 0.195133 ~linkage*practical*emancipatory 0.750000 0.214286 0.376070 ~linkage*~emancipatory 0.888889 0.571429 0.736788 ~practical*~emancipatory 0.857143 0.428571 0.624500 ~linkage 0.888889 0.571429 0.736788 PPP Cross case configurations ~linkage ~linkage*(emancipatory + practical + practical * ~emancipatory + ~practical *emancipatory)
    14. 14. Discussion: what do the results say The rules depend on a) interdependence and b) modularity within the programs PPP IST/eTEN EARSS Mixed Interdependencies Low interdependence High interdependence Medium Modularity High Modularity High Modularity less linkage minimum linkage minimum linkage combine practical & emancipatory emancipatory practical averse emancipatory Highly complex Medium to highly Complex Simple
    15. 15. Conclusions and Implications • refute the idea of internalized complexity (Ashby, 1958) • or that a complex contract is unavoidable (Eggleston et al., 2000) • or that a contract should be complete and optimal (classical theory) • or that relationships matter more than rules (relational theory) balance of rules The systemic contract is flexible and enabling, directs evolutionary-emergent action, not just controls (Remington, 2011) • identify which patterns of behaviour in a complex system are predictable and can be standardized • provide platforms for patterns of behaviour that self-emerge and are uncontrollable but highly desirable in situations require high interdependence and flexibility • contracts should be purposely incomplete, focusing on adaptation and interdependence and use control to a measure analytic induction can merge the mode of confirmatory analysis used in management approaches with the exploratory nature of work in complexity theories (Phelan, 1998)
    16. 16. Contact details Dr Maria Kapsali Browaldh fellow - Assistant Professor in Projects, Innovation and Networks Umeå School of Business and Economics Umeå Universitet Dr Jens Roehrich Assistant Professor in Operations and Supply Management School of Management Biblioteksgränd 6, 901 87 Umeå, Sweden Information, Decision and Operations Group University of Bath e: e: w: t: +46 (0)90 786 5441 w: skype: maria.kapsali25 twitter: marukapsalis
    17. 17. Appendices • Retroduction: Logical reasoning • Critical Realism • Details on the 23 projects
    18. 18. Why fsQCA (3)
    19. 19. Deduction Retroduction Induction Theory Generalization RULE and CASE to RESULT CASE and RESULT to RULE Empirical Specific RULE and RESULT to CASE How deduction, induction and retroduction work through empirics and theory (Alvesson and Skoldberg, 1994) Logical inferences from major and minor “ if ” assumptions – hypotheses form probability statements when all conditions being equal the higher past frequency the higher the probability to inference being generalizable Induction Logical inferences from specific cases to the general rules- construct the origins or preconditions of a rule, piece by piece – focus on causation Highly context specific – not generalizable Abduction The act of seeing something anew, a “flash” where you connect pieces of information to understand an unexpected rule – application of common sense to find the most plausible explanation Retroduction Aims to assert the necessary and sufficient causes and preconditions to be produced or reproduced, for the phenomenon to come into existence Deduction Formally correct but sometimes empirically flawed- it depends on the “correctness” of assumptions Inductive thinking is susceptible to habit, subjective experience and expectation Abductive reasoning is comparative judgment and its clarity is non systematic and questionable Makes comparative judgment systematic and relatively general The four types of scientific abstraction – logical reasoning (as in Bertilsson, 2004).
    20. 20. Table 6.1: The ontological assumptions of CR 2008: 314). (Downward, Real Contingent conditions Intrinsic objects Mechanisms may or may not fire Triggers Actual The ontology of CR (Modell, 2005) Events and tendencies Patterns may or may not be observable Empirical Core Ontological Assumptions Observation Experience Reality as a concrete process Assumptions About Human Nature Man as an adaptor Basic Epistemological Stance To study systems, process, change Favored Metaphors Organism
    21. 21. Epistemology Role of theory What is real is not given (there are levels of reality). The world has both forced and emergent structures. People’s involvement with structures is transformational Theory is a conjecture about the connectedness of events and the causal sequences produced by generative mechanisms Nature of explanation Method of study Something is explained if it is allocated a place at the end of a causal sequence. There may be multiple causes of a single event coming from the context. Contextualized explanation The aim is to produce a theory which accurately identifies causal mechanisms Retroduction Assert the necessary and sufficient causes and preconditions to produce or reproduce the phenomenon/event Makes comparative judgment (abduction) systematic and relatively general
    22. 22. Projects EARSS 1 EARSS 2 EARSS 3 IST GALEN IST ODIN IST M2DM Performance Bundle Contract length Concurrent national project 1998 – 2006 Concurrent national project 1998 – 2006 Concurrent national project 1998 – 2006 Open Source ontology development 1997 - 1999 European nursing informatics and telematics 1999 - 2001 Patient Telemonitoring Ultra Low Discomfort Vital Signs Sensors over Mobile Networks 2001- 2005 Peripheral Regions Oriented Measure 1999 - 2001 Multi-Access telematic Management of Diabetes Mellitus 2001 - 2005 eTEN AIDMAN feasibility study protocol models, effectiveness and performance for deployment IST TELECARE IST PROMPT eTEN EURODONOR eTEN EVITAL eTEN MEDASHIP eTEN MEDCONTI-NET eTEN IREMMA eTEN TELE-REMEDY eTEN MEDICATE eTEN NIVEMES Hospital A Hospital B Waste Management A Waste Management B ** ** € 1.8 m € 512.419 ** € 2.100.578 The four types of projects in this order (top-down): EARSS, IST, PPP and eTEN 1999 - 2000 ** €0.73m 2003 - 2004 ** €3.19m 2002 - 2004 ** €2.13m Medical consultation Assistance for ships service analyse market demand for a Home Care system in cross-national context establish a trans-European network, services for environmental diseases, Asthma Allergy feasibility study, commercial validation and largescale deployment Medical Diagnosis, Communications and Analysis Throughout Europe for monitor asthma patients in own homes develop an international network of Telemedicine providers and services 2002 - 2003 ** €2.73m 2002 - 2003 ** €2.63m 2002 - 2004 ** €1.82m 1998 - 1999 ** €3.2m 1999 - 2000 ** €3.67m 1996 - 1998 Design, build, finance and operate (DBFO); construction of new hospital; hard and soft service FM 30 years ** €3m Classical - Output Non-standard £150m 30 years ** Standard (version 3) £150m DBFO; construction of new waste treatment plants 25 years and stations; no waste collection 25 years ** Non-standard £35m ** Non-standard £100m 25 years ** Non-standard £20m 25 years ** Non-standard £10m definition, specification realisation of European Organ Data Exchange Portal Data Base validate the European market for remote monitoring service Fire and Rescue Service A Fire and Rescue Service B Contract nature and value Minimum specifications ** ** Classical- performance ** DBFO; construction of new training facility; hard (estate) and soft service FM