Case Studies
Introduction
There are many reasons why Case Studies are valuable tools in researching new ways of working, especially across various disciplines. Some key advantages are listed here:
In-depth exploration:
A case study lets you delve deeply into a single subject or phenomenon, uncovering rich layers of detail and nuance that might be missed in wider-scale studies. This is particularly effective for understanding complex or intricate topics.
Real-world context:
Case studies allow you to examine things in their natural setting, taking into account all the surrounding factors and influences. This provides a more holistic understanding than studies based on isolated data or controlled environments.
Theory development and testing:
Case studies can be used to build new theories or test existing ones. By examining a specific case in detail, you can explore how concepts and ideas play out in practice, leading to deeper insights and potential revisions of established theories.
Generating fresh perspectives:
Case studies can challenge conventional thinking by offering unique viewpoints and highlighting previously overlooked aspects of a topic. This can be especially valuable in interdisciplinary research or when exploring new areas of inquiry.
Practical applications:
Case studies can offer practical solutions and learnings. By understanding the successes and failures of a specific situation, researchers can provide actionable insights for improving similar scenarios in other contexts.
Accessibility and feasibility:
Case studies are often more accessible and require fewer resources than large-scale quantitative studies. This makes them a valuable option for researchers with limited funding or time constraints.
Engagement and storytelling:
Case studies can be engaging and captivating, bringing research to life through narrative and real-world examples. This can be particularly effective for communicating findings to a wider audience, beyond just academic circles.
However, it's important to acknowledge some limitations:
Generalisability:
Findings from a single case might not be directly applicable to other situations. Careful consideration of the case’s unique context and potential biases is crucial when interpreting results.
Subjectivity:
Case studies can be susceptible to researcher bias, particularly in the selection and interpretation of data. Rigorous methodological principles are essential to ensure objectivity and minimize bias.
Overall, case studies offer a powerful approach to research, providing valuable insights and understanding that complement other research methods. They are particularly valuable for exploring complex phenomena, generating new ideas, and offering practical solutions in a real-world context.
Selected SPMI Case Studies
These organisations were selected given Dr Gough’s previous involvement with, or knowledge of, their specific business environments and how they structured a new way of working with organisational project management.
They have all developed policies and are currently employing strategies to improve their business outcomes by embarking on corporate improvement change management. To underpin their approaches to project management they were asked to comment on how the newly developed model could be tested and potentially incorporated in their ongoing improvement initiatives.
The five case studies include:
- 1. A Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Sri Lanka: its corporate improvement program initiated in 2016 and updated 2019 – 2020.
- 2. ABC Corporation Property Group: its corporate improvement program in 2002 – 2011 and updated 2019-2020
- 3. The Malaysian Government Department of Works, Kuala Lumpur corporate improvement program 2007 – 2012, updated 2019 – 2020
- 4. ABC Corporation Asphalt Company Queensland, Brisbane: its corporate improvement program 2002 – 2019; updated 2019-2020
- 5. A State Government Directorate of City Services, corporate improvement program, initial report 2019-2020; updated 2020-2021.
- 6. Note: The names of organisations have been changed for anonymity, and the years indicated after each Case Study, e.g., 2002 – 2019, indicate the years that Dr Gough was involved with each organisation.
Of note is the involvement or otherwise of each study’s Executive Management, their participation and interest. With ABC Asphalt, the lead manager was the GM and his State Management Team. With ABC Property Group, it was a member of the Business Management Team. With Sri Lanka, it was the Business Chamber of Commerce Management Team with the full backing of the Board. In Malaysia, the Initiative Management Team was with the Departmental Director’s full support. Unusually, the State Directorate resulted in a cross-functional operations-led team and a community of practice headed by the CIO. Interestingly, the impetus for change does not necessarily require full executive approval, but it does need a champion or champion team to make it work.
