A thesis about the partnership between TPG and the WFP

(1)

Moving the World…

Moving Meaning?

A thesis about the partnership between TPG and the WFP

Suzanne Derksen 1025848

June 2004

University of Groningen

Faculty of Business administration

1st supervisor: Heico van der Blonk

2nd supervisor: Bartjan Pennink

(2)

Well… one of the things growing up in Africa, because I was also a beneficiary of food aid. I mean, it was very much the impression I wanted to work in Development and WFP is a quite good organisation towards development work. For me feeding school children is very

important. Giving mothers food is very important. One of the pictures I saw, I think it was in 90’s, it was during one of the East-African droughts, was a baby who was still trying to suckle on the breast of a dead mother. As a mother there is nothing worse for you than not being able to feed your children. Children look at you with there big eyes. Have great expectations. Yes, yes, children depend on you. So it is good that WFP provides food for mothers and also feeds children. Besides all the things WFP does, these are things which are really important and which I really relate to. Of all the stupid things I say, I mean complain about WFP, there is one thing I really admire and that is feeding children and mothers. (OI 2-2 K)

(3)

Figures

Figure 1: Research questions in relation to the objective ... 5

Figure 2: Perceptions of people about the organisation they work for ... 6

Figure 3: Meaning and interaction influence each other through the concept of perception. ... 9

Figure 4: Social context of Columbus ... 10

Figure 5: Mapping events in a Social Process: a hypothetical example ... 11

Figure 6: Conceptual model of the case study ... 14

Figure 7: Major differences between inductive and deductive approaches to research ... 17

Figure 8: Conducted interviews ... 19

Figure 9: Typology of writing case studies ... 22

Figure 10: Perceptions of people about the organisation they work for ... 26

Figure 11: Development of project Columbus ... 44

Figure 12: Relevant social groups of project Columbus ... 46

Figure 13: Thinking frames present in project Columbus ... 50

Figure 14: Fifth group: the perspective of the researcher... 52

Figure 15: Social themes influencing the development of the partnership... 59

Figure 16: Social themes influencing the development of the partnership... 67

Figure 17: Features Human Relations frame ... 68

(6)

Preface

My first acquaintance with the partnership between WFP and TPG was during the Business Course of TPG in the summer of 2002. My enthusiasm for the project was raised immediately. A partnership between a private and a public organisation... I had the feeling I wanted to be part of this. By coincidence I mentioned the subject during an interview for a different internship at Spring, and it happened to be the case that some people at Spring were working on setting up projects for the partnership...

So I was lucky. And I must say it was a wonderful experience. Having to look at both a private - and a public organisation at the same time really gave me the chance to experience the differences between these organisations. The freedom I got within Spring to follow my own way was wonderful. Also, the warmth with which I was welcomed at the WFP Headquarters in Rome overwhelmed me. It was impressive to see how passionate the people there are about their work. Many personal conversations about the food problem in the world have stayed in my mind.

The people I met both at WFP as at TPG have made a big impression on me. Everyone was really enthusiastic about my research and very willing to co-operate. I would like to thank Wouter and Cees for giving me the chance to work on Moving the World, Rocco for brainstorming with me on the topic and for the nice company on the trips to Rome, Anastasia for the tips & tea and Wendy for her advice and British humour. At WFP there was Kawinzi, who made me feel very welcome. And I would also like to thank Amir, for taking me to Lazio-Roma, of course, but also for letting me sit at the Board Meeting.

So the internship was a wonderful experience. Writing the thesis turned out to take more time than expected. In August 2003 I was involved in a car accident. Up until this moment I am recovering from that moment. That is why I would like to give a special thanks to Heico for his patience.

As a final note I would like to say that while you are reading this report things that might have escaped your attention in the past may suddenly become full of meaning. Things which you may have taken for granted may begin to look less solid. In doing so, you can share some of the pleasure and excitement which I experienced in working on this thesis.

Suzanne Derksen June 2004

(7)

Summary

‘Moving the World’ is an example of a partnership between a public sector- and private sector organisation. It is an initiative between TNT Post Group (TPG) and the World Food Programme (WFP) of the United Nations. In December 2002 they have signed an agreement for five years.

WFP and TPG have identified a number of areas where a partnership between the two organisations could create a true and sustainable improvement in the unacceptable statistic –

“Every 5 seconds a child dies of hunger”. By analysing this partnership a lot could be learned about how long-term public private partnerships can be made sustainable. TPG and WFP want their partnership to be built to last. But building relationships is not an easy process especially when the cultural and organisational characteristics of the parties involved may be very different.

The process of building relationships relies on creating better understanding of the partner and their context. That is why the objective of this research is to create a good understanding for both TPG and WFP of their partner and themselves. In order to reach that good understanding (a realistic view of each other and themselves) the development of the partnership is described and analysed. The meaning of development in this research is twofold; on the one hand there is the development of the project and on the other there is the development of the interpretations of the project by the participants. The first is referred to as ‘development’ and the latter is referred to as the ‘social context’. In the final stage of the analysis the insights gained from both tracks of development are linked together, so that both parties could understand what is governing their behaviour and the central research question can be answered:

What influences the development of the partnership between WFP and TPG within a social context?

The paradigmatic background of this research is that the social reality is perceived from a social contructivist perspective. Social constructivism posits that human beings construct reality, and that this is done in such a way that in everyday life a seemingly objective reality exists. (van der Blonk, 2003) However, reality is not objective, which makes it important to study the processes by which the seemingly objective reality is constructed. This means that it is assumed that the outcome of the partnership is dependent on the social processes involved, which posits the partnership as a social meaning-making process.

The research design is directly connected to the social constructivist perspective. Because of the interest in social meaning and the processes that generate those meanings, this research asked for research methods of a qualitative nature. Also, it is chosen to use an inductive approach to research, to gain a close understanding of the research context. The research is conducted as a case study because I wished to gain a rich understanding of the context of the research and the processes being enacted. It was not aimed to generate statistical generalisations, but rather to pursue a theoretical understanding of the partnership. The empirical research material consists of factors material, observations of meetings and communication patterns, interviews (official and unofficial) and reflective notes of the researcher.

I adopted the ‘participant as observer’ role. In the case description the multiple voices of the participants occupied the centre stage, complemented by a chronically description of the ‘facts’

and wider levels of analysis. The voice of me, as the researcher, is also clearly defined and made recognisable.

The case study consists of project Columbus, which is one of the projects within Moving the World. The goal of Columbus is to deliver the Management Plan WFP 2004-2005 (the budget proposal) by August 2003 according to the principles of RBM and ZBB. TPG has already gone through such an exercise and is willing to share its knowledge with WFP. Implementing RBM is

(8)

The process of the case of Columbus has to be described and analysed within a social context.

For the description the social process model by Newman and Robey (1992) is used. This process model focuses on the dynamics of social change, explaining how and why the results of the development efforts are achieved. In line with the social process model, the development of project Columbus is recorded according to encounters and episodes during a longitudinal study of 8 months.

The case is analysed using an approach largely based on the Social Construction of Technology. (SCOT) by Pinch and Bijker (1987). The theory of SCOT is a method of explaining technological artefacts by focusing on the meanings given to them by relevant social groups. In line with the SCOT the multiple meanings that can be attached to the partnership can be radically different, and consequently there are, in fact, as many partnerships as there are relevant social groups. During the analysis four different social groups were discerned, being the TPG team members, the WFP team members, the WFP decision-makers and the project owner of WFP, with each their own meanings attached to the partnership. Five different spectacles (thinking frames) to look at the partnership can be distinguished, being the Project Management frame, the RBM Implementation frame, the Consultancy frame, the Human Relations frame and the Task Fulfilment frame.

In the final step of the analysis, the development of project Columbus is explained by using the insights gained by mapping the diversity of meanings. These insights are extracted into social themes of which both partners’ interpretations differ so significantly that they influence the development of the partnership.

The conclusions that emerge from this research are:

- Building a relationship between a public- and private organisation is not an easy process.

This research has shown that by systematically mapping out the process of the partnership and the diversity of meanings of the relevant social groups involved, insights are gained about the complex processes influencing the partnership.

- In the end, it is unlikely there will evolve a dominant meaning of the partnership. Closure was not reached in the sense that all different social groups accepted a dominant meaning of the partnership. All social groups were very much stuck in their own thinking frames and showed little flexibility. Ideally there will evolve a partnership in which no social group perceives any problems.

- Due to several misunderstandings and disappointments, the partners were less and less understanding towards each other.

- The misunderstandings and disappointments were largely due to differences between the partners at the level of five social themes:

- Power and Politics

- Measurement of Performance - Decision making

- The nature of time - Communication

- The Human Relations frame has proven an important catalyst in the partnership, because its presence proved to ‘soften’ the influence of the groups’ own dominant thinking frames.

Consequently, the view on the partnership provided by the Human Relations frame, is useful in fostering the partnership.

(9)

I. Introduction

In this Chapter I will give an introduction of the reasons for this research; the different organisations involved and the subject of research. Finally a short outline of the report will be given.

1.1 Background

As national economies become more and more interdependent through information, trade, investment and financial ties, there is a growing need for international co-operation and regulatory consistency to spread the benefits of globalisation. The UN recognises that the private sector must be a key player in integrating the developing world into the global economy in order to raise living standards and reduce poverty. “Entering into a dialogue with corporations, including the give and take of positive criticism when required will produce better results than reinforced positions of mutual isolation.” (Horekens, 2003) Increasingly, UN agencies are co- operating with businesses on a large scale, with mutual benefits. (www.un.org, 2003)

‘Moving the World’ is an example of a partnership between a public sector- and private sector organisation¹. Moving the World is an initiative between TNT Post Group (TPG) and the World Food Programme (WFP) of the United Nations. In December 2002 they have signed an agreement for five years. WFP and TPG have identified a number of areas where a partnership between the two organisations could create a true and sustainable improvement in the unacceptable statistic – “Every 5 seconds a child dies of hunger”. Within this project TPG will make its people, skills, systems and assets available to support WFP – in a number of agreed areas – in its mission to eradicate hunger. TPG aims to be recognised by its employees, customers, and eventually the world, as a leading company with a social conscience. WFP aims to create a model for responsible and sustainable private sector relationships that can be used to supplement its current government support, increase the diversity of its donors and types of donations, and raise WFP’s visibility within the private sector.

The following initiatives have been identified:

Fundraising Private Sector, TPG helps WFP in the design and set up for a private sector fundraising programme.

Emergency Response, TPG provides operational assistance to WFP for emergency response.

Joint Logistic Supply Chain, a critical – albeit long term initiative – is the support that TPG wishes to provide in the design and implementation of the WFP-managed UN Joint Logistics Centre.

Transparency & Accountability, TPG helps to increase the transparency and accountability to existing and new WFP donors.

School feeding support, TPG business units provide financial support and partner with WFP staff to build sustainable school feeding operations.

My first introduction to ‘Moving the World’ was during the Business Course of TPG in summer of 2002. My enthusiasm for the project was raised immediately. I applied and luckily TPG gave me

1The UN working definition of Public Private Partnerships (PPP’s):

‘A partnership is a voluntary and collaboratory agreement between one or more partners of the UN system and non-state actors, in which all participants agree to work together to achieve a common purpose or undertake a specific task and to share risks, responsibilities, resources, competencies and

(10)

the possibility to do a research with as subject the partnership, leaving the objective of my research up to me. I was excited, but the following summary of an article in the McKinsey Quartely gave me a more objective impression of why this partnership was so important.

“The funding environment has played an important role in shaping charitable organisations.

Most donors take a project-based rather than an organisation-building approach to philanthropy.

For the non-profit sector to have a greater social impact, individual donors and foundations will have to provide more long-term support, with a focus on building capabilities and showing results. Making the needed investments will require a change in mind-set for many non-profits and their executives, who are often reluctant to take time and money away from current programs in order to make long-term investments. Investments in capacity building produce returns only after several years, an unthinkably and unacceptably long time for many non-profits and their donors. But the failure of donors and non-profits to think long term is at the very heart of why so few non-profits are built to last. The challenge now is to accelerate the pace and extend the reach of change among those who provide funds and non-profit organisations. When this happens, the non-profit sector will be in a far better position to meet the challenge of the coming years, enhancing the lives of all it touches.” (Lowell et al., 2001)

WFP is totally dependent on the generosity of her donors as well. And although the organisation is operating in the public sector² instead of the non-profit sector³, it also faces the challenge of making the organisation more transparent. ‘Moving the World’ is a perfect example for the kind of organisation-building approach described in the above. By analysing this partnership a lot could be learned about how long-term ‘public private partnerships’ (PPP’s) can be made sustainable.

1.2 The organisations and the partnership

Before moving to the subject of research, a short introduction of the parties involved will be given. Besides TPG and WFP, the joint venture ‘Spring’ is also described because it was the base of which I conducted the research. The consequences of me being located at Spring will be discussed in paragraph 3.4.

TPG

The TNT Post Group (TPG) was formed in December 1996 through a friendly take-over of TNT by KPN. In June 1998 a split up took place, TPG separated from KPN. The TPG stock traded separately since then. The company’s mission is “to achieve a recognised world leadership position through excellent service to customers in three divisions – Mail, Express and Logistics – based on a strong market position in Europe”. It has around 140.000 employees and has revenue of EUR 11,218 million. It provides services in more than 200 countries, with company owned operations in 59 countries.

2 ‘Public sector organisations are enterprises committed to the provision of public goods and services.

Publicness is characterised by public policy implementation, a mandate allocated by a principal and close vicinity to the political arena.’ (Thoenig, 1997: 421)

3To be considered part of the non-profit sector an entity must be:

• organisational, i.e., an institution with some meaningful structure and permanence;

• non-governmental, i.e. not part of the apparatus of government;

• non-profit-distributing, i.e., not permitted to distribute profits to its owners or directors, but rather required to plow them back into the objectives of the organisation;

• self-governing, i.e., not controlled by some entity outside the organisation; and supportive of some public purpose. (Salomon, 1998)

(11)

Spring

3G Worldwide Mail N.V. is a global joint venture in cross-border business mail combining the expertise, systems, networks, and products of TNT Post Group (TPG), Consignia and Singapore Post. Spring is the brand name of the joint venture. The company was officially launched 2^nd July 2001. Since then its ambition is “To be the number one private global mail distribution company”. TPG has a 51% share within the company, Consignia and Singapore Post both own 24,5%. Spring has 2000 employees, revenue of EUR 500 million and does its distribution through over 70 contracts with private and postal suppliers servicing over 200 destination countries.

WFP

Set-up in 1963, WFP is the United Nations frontline agency in the fight against global hunger. In 2001, WFP fed 77 million people in 82 countries, including most of the world's refugees and internally displaced people. The operational expenditure amounted to US$1.7 billion against a total amount of US$1.9 billion of contributions.

Her vision is a world in which every man, woman and child has access at all times to the food needed for an active and healthy life. Without food, there is no sustainable peace, no democracy and no development.

Since 1996, WFP has been governed by the WFP Executive Board, which consists of 36 Member States. The Executive Director is appointed jointly by the UN Secretary General and the Director-General of the FAO for a fixed five-year terms.

1.3 Research objective and – questions

Building relationships is not an easy process especially when the cultural and organisational characteristics of the parties involved may be very different. The process of building relationships relies on creating better understanding of the partner and their context. It does not mean that partners will necessarily be able to change what they do and how they do it. The main point is to understand what may be governing the behaviour. Once they understand what is behind something, they are better able to tolerate the situation or discuss ways of working around it. When each side has a more realistic view of the other, they are better equipped to develop strategies and approaches that will foster effective and sustainable partnerships.

(ORISE, 2001)

In this research TPG and WFP will be assisted in getting a realistic view of each other and themselves, because next to understanding what may be governing the behaviour of the partner, insights in one’s own behaviour will be valuable in fostering the partnership as well.

In order to reach this good understanding (a realistic view of each other and themselves) the development of the partnership will be followed. Before starting the research it was unknown what the outcome would be of the partnership. Either way, it would be of value to get a rich insight of the process, as the partners would learn why things went well or wrong. That is why the focus is on the development of the partnership.

The meaning of development in this research is twofold; on the one hand there is the development of the project and on the other there is the development of the interpretations of the project by the participants. From here the first will be referred to as ‘development’ and the latter will be referred to as the ‘social context’⁴. Both meanings of development will be thoroughly discussed in Chapter II. The insights gained from both tracks of development will be linked together, so that both parties can see what is governing their behaviour and the behaviour of the partner, to reach a good understanding of the partnership.

(12)

All this leads to the objective and research question of this research:

Objective:

To create a good understanding for both TPG and WFP of their partner and themselves to foster their partnership, by giving them insight into the development of their partnership within a social context.

Research question:

What influences the development of the partnership between WFP and TPG within a social context?

As following Moving the World as a whole would be impossible within the time constraint, the research focus had to be narrowed down. To get the rich insights needed, I decided to focus on project ‘Columbus’, which is one of the projects within the initiative of Transparency &

Accountability. So project Columbus will be used as a case study in order to understand the partnership of Moving the World. In the next paragraph the reason for this choice will be explained.

In order to answer the research question, three steps had to be taken. First, the development of project Columbus should be followed closely. Second, in order to understand this development it should be explained within a social context. And finally, from this rich understanding of project Columbus the social themes most likely of influence on the development of the partnership as a whole could be extracted. So in this final step project Columbus will be used as a case study in understanding the partnership as a whole. This final step from project Columbus towards Moving the World will be discussed in paragraph 1.4 and 3.7.

The first step is incorporated in research question 1 and the second in research question 2. The rich insights gained by answering research question 1 and 2 will be used in answering the research question. So research question 1 and 2 will be used as a tool to answer the research question. Summarised:

Step 1: Describe the development of the partnership (research question 1).

Step 2: Explain the partnership within a social context (research question 2).

Step 3: Extract the insights gained in step 1 and 2 into general themes of influence on the development of the partnership (research question).

In figure 1 this relationship is reproduced.

All this leads to the following research questions:

Research question 1:

How does project Columbus develop?

Research question 2:

How can the developments of project Columbus be explained within a social context?

In Chapter II the approach to answering research question 1 and 2 will be discussed, which will lead to the sub questions in paragraph 2.4.

(13)

Figure 1: The research questions in relation to the objective

1.4 Allocation research

To give insight into the dynamics of Moving the World as a whole would be a gigantic job, not possible to manage within the time constraint I faced. So the scope of the research had to be narrowed down. The choice of analysing the case of Columbus was made because it was expected to advance the understanding of the partnership as a whole. The insights gained from analysing project Columbus would most likely be applicable to Moving the World, but would not be inexhaustible. This matter of transferability of the findings will be elucidated in the below and in paragraph 3.7.

Project Columbus was one of the projects within the initiative of Transparency & Accountability.

Of the five initiatives within Moving the World this was the only one within which Spring was active. The company, a joint venture of TPG, was established according to its employees “to take risks in business that TPG did not dare to”. The employees perceived the company as extremely entrepreneurial and flexible.

Additionally, Transparency & Accountability focussed on streamlining the support function of WFP. The ‘publicness’ of WFP was especially present in the support function of the organisation. Its employees perceived it as being political, hierarchical and formal. On the contrary, the other four initiatives of Moving the World focussed on the operational part of WFP, which was considered to be the flexible side of WFP.

So, of the five initiatives within Moving the World, the differences between a public and a private organisation seemed to be especially present within Transparency & Accountability. Due to this, I expected it would be more interesting to follow the development of the partnership within a social context in this initiative than in the others. And most likely the themes coming forward between Spring and WFP within this initiative would come forward in the other initiatives as well, but less strong.

During my acquaintance with the partners involved the expected differences between Spring and WFP were confirmed. In the below figure (in Chapter IV this figure is discussed more extensively) the perceptions of the organisation people work for are stated. The features of WFP in ‘similarities’ can be attributed to the operational part of WFP. The features of WFP in

‘differences’ are considered part of the support function of WFP. The focus of Transparency &

Objective

Answer Research

question

Research question 1

Answer 1+ 2

Columbus Research

question 2 Moving the World

(14)

Figure 2: Perceptions of people about the organisation they work for

But why focus on Columbus? Columbus was just one of the five projects within Transparency &

Accountability (In Appendix A the project plan of project Columbus is given). One of the initial objectives of Columbus was changing the mindset of WFP towards the focus of Results Based Management (RBM). While looking at this goal several questions popped into my mind: “Why does WFP want to implement RBM? What challenges will the project members meet while trying implementing a ‘corporate’ management tool into a public organisation? Will people at WFP accept RBM and actually be willing to work with it? How will the necessary hand over of knowledge take place?” These were just a few of the interesting questions that played a role within this project. Besides me finding this project interesting and challenging, there were other reasons why Columbus was chosen as the case for study. First of all the other projects were too small to incorporate all the dynamics I was looking for. Second, easy and first hand access to this project was assured. My tutor at Spring was the project leader of Columbus. Further, this project was a perfect example of a long-term capacity building donorship mentioned above. And finally, the handing over of knowledge was of essential importance to this project. Assuming that individuals are considered to interact and share knowledge within a network of social relations, I expected that analysing the social context of the project could be interesting. Considering that the findings of the case of Columbus could be transferable towards Moving the World, I was excited to follow and analyse the process of the project.

1.5 Research Relevance

Practical Relevance

In general, if we should believe the article in the McKinsey Quartely by Lowell et al., the

partnership between WFP and TPG is rather unique, because it has an organisational-building approach rather than a project-based approach. By analysing this case a lot can be learned about making this kind of partnerships truly sustainable.

Additionally there are several reasons why this research is relevant and usable for both WFP and TPG. The private sector is a source of funds for WFP, which has not been fully explored until thus far. Step by step WFP is looking for ways to generate more funds from the private sector, and ‘Moving the World’ is the first sustainable partnership from which she hopes to draw a template for further partnerships. Getting a better insight of the partnership on a social level is of essential importance in setting up a realistic template. A good evaluation of the process has value for both the current- as for future partnerships between WFP and the private sector.

Spring WFP

• Dynamic

• Ad hoc

• Need for flexibility

• Action oriented

• Constantly changing environment

• Quick response

• Need for flexibility

• Constant change

• Fast moving

• Cowboy mentality

• International • Multicultural

• Open-minded

• Loyalty _• Reliability

Similarities

• Team players

• Family

• Team players

• Lot of communication

• Open

• Direct

• Political

• Loose guidelines

• Informal

• Lot of rules (UN system) Differences

• Young

• Ambitious

• Hierarchical

(15)

The goal of TPG is to be recognised by its employees, customers, and eventually the world, as a leading company with a social conscience. They hope to improve their internal- and external reputation. The improvement of the internal reputation is heavily dependent on how the partners will actually work together on a social level. If all goes well, storytellers will send positive messages into the company that will enhance the enthusiasm for the partnership. The external reputation is depending on the success of the partnership. The intentions are presented to the world and now TPG has to prove she can actually pull it off. So having a better insight in the influences on the process of their partnership will actually help TPG in making this partnership sustainable.

Finally, the advantage for both parties of conducting this research now is that by the end of this research there are still four more years ahead of working on this partnership. This way new team members will learn from the experiences of their colleagues.

Theoretical Relevance

This research has various contributions to theory building around Public Private Partnerships.

First of all, project Columbus has been studied for eight months. Consequently, in this study longitudinal empirical material was gathered, which can be used for other purposes and analyses than in this research.

Secondly, the study contributes to the understanding of how Public Private Partnerships unfold.

It provides a way to analyse the process of these kinds of partnerships.

And finally, little has been written on public private partnerships of the UN. Anyway not in such great detail. This study provides a searching analysis of a public private partnership.

1.6 Outline report

In Chapter II the theoretical framework will be explained. The role of theory will be as an explanatory framework to link the process developments to the underlying social context. The meaning of this ‘social context’ will become clear. And finally, the research questions will be a logical follow-up of the theoretical framework.

Chapter III will deal with the issue of research design. Several questions will be answered: What was studied? What were the strategies of data collection and -analysis? How was the quality of the research assured? But before going into detail on the research design, I explored the research approach used because it had major practical implications on me, as a researcher.

In the next Chapter the focus will be on the context of Columbus. Who are these two partners working together in Columbus? What is the goal of project Columbus and why this goal? Why does WFP want to implement RBM? The team members themselves will ‘tell’ more about the context of Columbus.

After the context of Columbus, the case of Columbus will be described in Chapter V. The different episodes and encounters discerned will be reviewed. In other words, the first part of the research, the development of project Columbus will be described and research question 1 will be answered.

After following the development of project Columbus, this development has to be explained within a social context. This will be done in Chapter VI, the Analysis. Research question 2 will be answered. And after giving a rich insight of the development of project Columbus, the findings will be extracted into social themes, which are of influence on the development of the partnership.

In Chapter VII, all the insight gained in the previous chapters will be combined in the conclusion.

The overall research question will be answered and some recommendations will be stated to help WFP and TPG build their partnership.

In the final chapter the perspective of the researcher will be elucidated.

(16)

II. Theoretical Framework

In this Chapter the theoretical framework used in this research will be discussed. The role of theory will be as an explanatory framework to link the process developments to the underlying social context. It will become clear how the theory is used as a framework to come to a description of the project process and an explanation of this process. The research questions are a logical follow-up of the theoretical framework.

2.1 Social Context

In order to come to an understanding of what is influencing the partnership, the partnership had to be explained within a social context. I realised that the ‘social context’ part of the research was subject to different explanations. Several assumptions were made to clearly define the

‘social context’ of the matter:

• The final outcome of the partnership is dependent on the social processes involved.

• The partnership is a social meaning-making process.

• Meaning is the product of human interaction, with people trading interpretations and inferring contrasting meanings.

• Human interaction is the product of meaning.

These assumptions and the effect they have on the definition of ‘social context’ within this research are explained in the below.

Social Constructivism

The subject of study is the partnership between WFP and TPG, with a focus on the social context of this partnership. While choosing this subject, immediately assumptions were made about the factors influencing the outcome of any process, may it be the development of a new technology or a partnership. This assumption made me focus on the field of Sociology.

Social constructivism is an established paradigm within the social sciences. It posits that human beings construct social reality, and that this is done in such a way that in everyday life a seemingly objective reality exists. However, reality is not objective, and therefor it is important to identify and study the processes in which such seemingly objective reality is generated and maintained (van der Blonk, 2002: 156). Over the years, social constructivism in how it has come to be used by researchers, acquired the dominant meaning “… that distinctly social processes are involved in the construction of institutions and subjective realities.” (Sismondo, 1993: 545).

This is also how social constructivism will be used here; it is assumed that the final outcome of the partnership will be dependent on the social processes involved. Consequently, attention is drawn to the social processes involved in the partnership and to the process by which social meaning becomes embedded into the partnership.

This view makes organisations much less rationalistic, and it draws attention to the way meaning changes over time. The orientation of this conceptualisation thus becomes processual.

An organisation can be seen as consisting of organising processes that bring forth organisation – organisation that has acquired some stability for a certain period of time. (van der Blonk, 2002:

39)

Sims, Fineman and Gabriel (1993) also shifted the focus from ‘organisation’ to ‘organising’; from the product to the processes which make the product possible. In their opinion organising is to be seen as a social, meaning-making process where order and disorder are in constant tension with one another, and where unpredictability is shaped and ‘managed’. The raw materials of organising – people, their beliefs, actions and shared meanings – are in constant motion, like the waters of a river.

(17)

Interaction, perception and meaning

By looking at the partnership as a social meaning-making process I started to clearly define what I was looking for in this research. Basically I was interested in what happened and mostly why it happened. I was interested in the people and their actions (the ‘what’ part) and their beliefs and shared meanings (the ‘why’ part).

So the assumption was made that the partnership was social meaning-making process. But what is meaning exactly? “Human beings can be seen as ‘meaning-seeking’ animals; words have meanings, as do stories and myths. Meaning is what one seeks to convey through the use of language or other forms of communication, like gestures and expressions. In this sense, meaning is the ultimate object of human communication. Meaning is linked to symbolism, since meaning is what the symbol stands for. Discovering the meaning of anything, like a joke, a poem or an action, requires a process of interpretation. Sociologists, argue that meaning is the product of human interaction, with people trading interpretations and inferring contrasting meanings.”

(Sims et al., 1993: 271).

“Perception refers to the processes by which we create subjective meaning from the stimuli received by our senses. Our perceptions are our personal interpretations of the world; the shaping of experiences and events into some coherent whole. The notion of perception in organisational behaviour leads us to anticipate that people’s perceived worlds may differ and that difference can explain, at least in art, what they think and do. There are factors, which influence the shape and content of perceptions. We often ‘see’ what we want to see: our needs, motivations and emotions will, unconsciously, start the perceptual-shaping process.” (Sims et al., 1993: 278).

The essence of this all is that the perception people have of the world around them shapes and explains their behaviour. The meaning of choice influences this perception; it is like the different

‘glasses’ one can put on to look at the world. The other way around; through their behaviour and interaction people can also change their perception of the world around them and so the meaning they attach to a certain fact. Concluding; meaning and interaction influence each other through the concept of perception.

Figure 3: Meaning and interaction influence each other through the concept of perception.

Translating all this to the research it means that ‘social context’ is interwoven within the whole research. Looking at the development of Columbus, the interaction between team members was followed. Trying to explain this development I searched for reasons of the behaviour (interaction) by looking at the meaning people attach to the partnership. In this meaning I hoped to find an explanation for the behaviour. But also the other way around; the meaning people attached to the partnership changed over time through the interaction that took place within the project. In this research I tried to shed some light on this play between meaning and interaction, so that the two parties could get more insight into the development of their partnership. In figure 3 the social context of project Columbus is reproduced.

MEANING

INTERACTION PERCEPTION

(18)

Figure 4: The social context of Columbus

2.2 Development of Columbus

As mentioned before, the research can be broken up into three pieces. The first step is the description of the development of Columbus and the second is the explanation of this development. The third is the summary of the insights gained from the previous steps; the social themes influencing the development of the partnership are given. The first, descriptive part of the research will be discussed hereunder.

Process theories

First of all, a framework was necessary to describe the development of Columbus. Taking up the process view of organisations (i.e. the organisation as a process of organising), process theories come into the picture. Loosely, a process theory is one that tells a little story how something comes about, but in order to qualify as a theoretical explanation of recurrent behaviour, the manner of story telling must conform to narrow specifications. (Mohr, 1982: 44)

Process models focus on sequences of events over time in order to explain how and why particular outcomes are reached. The process-model explains and predicts the outcome of a project on the basis of the process. Applying this theory to the partnership between WFP and TPG, this theory gives a framework for describing the development of the partnership. It might seem that there is a difference of focus, while the outcome of the partnership is already predetermined within the legal agreement. But if honest, the outcome of the partnership is not yet determined and is depending on many factors. Keeping this in mind, the process theory can be used perfectly to explain the process until thus far. (with ‘until thus far’ meaning the end date of the data collection)

Social process model

Newman and Robey (1992) used a social process model of user-analyst relationships to guide research into the social development of system development. The process research model focuses on the dynamics of social change, explaining how and why the results of the development efforts are achieved. The initial intention of this research was to explain how the characteristics of the process affect the outcome of project Columbus. Here the possible period of research was too short to be able to observe the outcome of project Columbus. It would be impossible to predict the outcome as it is subject to all kinds of unforeseeable factors. That is why no statements will be made about the outcome of the project. The reason why this model is used anyway, despite the omitting of focus on the outcome here, is that it is a good tool to register the interaction between the partners.

Newman and Robey (1992) warn against the temptation to treat the process model merely as a descriptive model, useful in explaining events after the fact. They stress the predictive ability of the model. Unfortunately I will, initially, use the social process model as a descriptive model, because the focus of my research will be on giving insight in the underlying social context influencing the described process itself. So the Social Process Model is only used as a way to describe the development of project Columbus, no value will be given to the different episodes

MEANING attributed to the partnership

Development of project Columbus (INTERACTION)

PERCEPTION

(19)

and encounters, as the success of the project is subjective. Only in a later stadium, in the analysis, value will be granted to the partnership.

The model Newman and Robey use identifies antecedent conditions, encounters, episodes, and outcomes over the course of a project. An episode refers to a set of events that stand apart from others, thus signifying the end of one sequence of activities and the beginning of another.

In the model, encounters mark the beginnings and ends of episodes. An encounter can be judged as critical either by the researchers or, in interpretative studies, by the actors in the situation themselves. Clearly every interaction (meeting, phone call, etc.) cannot be considered of equal theoretical importance, so (like all theories) the model is a simplification of reality and treats different events in different ways. Encounters as social phenomena, require the two parties to interact, although this interaction does not need to be face-to-face. Episodes, by contrast, are longer time periods wherein the pattern set within an earlier encounter is played out.

Figure 5: Mapping events in a Social Process: a hypothetical example

The development of project Columbus will be recorded according to encounters and episodes.

To simplify the model, episodes are to be characterised by one of four types of relationships:

joint development, WFP-led development, TPG-led development, and equivocation. The distinction between the types of relationships is based on the power to make decisions about the development of the project. Each of the first three types represents an equilibrium where the parties have agreed on project leadership responsibilities. The fourth type of episode, equivocation, occurs when either party adopts an uncommitted ‘wait –and-see’ attitude. See figure 5 for an example.

Newman and Robey claim that new patterns of interaction after the encounters excite from different mechanisms. Claims made in the initial encounter may be met by one of three different responses: acceptance of the claim, rejection of the claim, and equivocation. These mechanisms will not be used in this research to explain the new patterns of interaction. As earlier stated, the explanation will be focussed on the meaning people attach to the partnership.

The antecedent condition is treated as the relationship between parties occurring before a project is begun. Clearly, these conditions can be considered antecedent for a current project, but they are also outcomes of prior projects. The researcher’s window of observation on a

Time Outcome En. 4

Ep. 4 En. 1

Ep. 3 Ep. 2

Ep. 1

En. 3 En. 2

Joint development WFP-led development Equivocation TPG-led development Antecedent

conditions

(20)

Robey, 1992). In this case, there was no relationship between the parties before the project begun. So no significant pattern of development could be discerned. The parties had even never heard of each other before. Though the context of the partnership is definitely important in understanding the relationship between TPG and WFP. This context will be explored in Chapter IV.

An essential ingredient of a process model is specification of outcomes. As previously discussed, in this research there will be no focus on the end result of project Columbus.

Additionally, no value will be assigned to the development of the project, because success of the project is dependent on the interpretation of the people involved and is thus subjective.

2.3 Meaning of the partnership

By using the social process model it can be described, through sequences of events over time, how particular outcomes are reached. Trying to explain this development there will be searched for reasons of the behaviour (interaction) by looking at the meaning people attach to the partnership. For this purpose an approach largely based on the Social Construction of Technology (SCOT) will be used. “SCOT provides a considerable descriptive power to make sense of and to understand the case. Further, it offers concepts to analyse and describe processes in neutral ways, i.e. in ways not biased by notions of success and failure, good or bad, desirable or undesirable etc. And lastly, SCOT also offers a methodology to analyse empirical material." (van der Blonk, 2002: 103) Therefor the SCOT approach is an interesting theory to understand the case of Columbus.

Social Construction of Technology (SCOT)

The theory of SCOT is a method of explaining technological artefacts by focusing on the meanings given to them by relevant social groups. It is based on the paradigm of social constructivism. Within the SCOT technology is not seen as a neutral or objective entity, but as a socially constructed and interpreted. This has come to be known as the interpretative flexibility of a technology, which not only means ‘that there is flexibility in how people think of or interpret artefacts but also that there is flexibility in how artefacts are designed. (Pinch and Bijker, 1987: 40) This is the same for the partnership between WFP and TPG. The multiple meanings that can be attached to a partnership can be radically different, and consequently there are, in fact, as many partnerships as there are relevant social groups. Different groups may see different problems in the partnership for which different solutions are sought. And each problem and each solution, as a relevant social group perceives it, changes its meaning.

How can a theory about technology be applied to a partnership between a public and a private organisation? The answer lies in the assumption that both the technology and the partnership are the product of the social processes involved in which actors attach meaning to the technology / partnership. Within the theory of SCOT a technology has an ongoing outcome influenced by the social process. In this research the outcome of the partnership is also ongoing.

A partnership is not necessary the outcome of the intention of a partnership. Consequently, here SCOT will be used to give insight in the development so far.

Various concepts are used in the theory of SCOT; these will be discussed hereunder. In the course of development of a technology several relevant social groups are involved. Such groups consist of members “who share the same set of meanings, attached to a specific artefact” (Pinch and Bijker, 1987: 30), “a meaning that can then be used to explain particular development paths” (Kline and Pinch, 1996: 765). The shared meaning attached to a partnership thus is the constituting characteristic of a relevant social group. The concept of relevant social groups is not a static one; groups can change over time, disappear or new ones may emerge. Stabilisation refers to the development within one relevant social group. The more homogeneous the meanings attributed to the artefact, the higher is the degree of stabilisation (Bijker, 1993: 121).

(21)

Translating to this research, the key requirements of a relevant social group are:

• All members of a certain social group share the same set of meanings, attached to project Columbus. A key question regarding this requirement is: ‘Does the project have any meaning at all for the members of the social group under investigation?’

• A provisionally defined social group is homogeneous with respect to the meanings given to the partnership

Although the only defining property is some homogeneous meaning given to the partnership, a detailed description of the relevant social groups is needed in order to define better the function of the project with respect to each group. Relevant factors for these detailed descriptions are:

• Power; the sources of power each group has in order to influence the process

• Problems; the problems each group has with respect to the partnership

• Solutions; around each problem, several variants of solution can be identified

An important concept within the theory of SCOT is ‘closure’. Closure in technology involves the stabilisation of an artefact and the ‘disappearance’ of problems. Whereas the interpretative flexibility illuminates the different meanings that exist for different relevant social groups, the concepts of closure and stabilisation focus on the emergence of a dominant one. Closure, in the analysis of technology, means that the interpretative flexibility of an artefact diminishes.

Consensus among the different relevant social groups about the dominant meaning of an artefact emerges and the “pluralism of artefacts” decreases. Closure results in one technology becoming dominant while others cease to exist. To determine whether closure has been reached and more important how closure was reached in project Columbus is impossible, as the period of data collection was too short.

To understand the process of how meaning is attributed to technology, the theory of SCOT has been extended with the concept of a technology frame. This is a frame, which structures thinking and interaction for the people involved in the frame, and it provides ways of seeing problems, solutions, criteria, etc. In this research there will not be talked about technology frames, but thinking frames, while the development of a partnership is under research, and not a technology. Thinking frames represent the various ‘spectacles’ that can be identified in a case.

According to the theory of SCOT, a thinking frame is developed alongside the development of a technology. It is built up when interaction around a technology begins, when these interactions move members of an emerging relevant social group in the same direction. It emerges along the way as the technology is developed. The artefact examined here is the partnership between WFP and TPG, this artefact was new as well and developed along the way. As in the theory of SCOT some thinking frames were developed alongside the development of the partnership.

Others though, were present previous to the partnership in the minds of the people. The different social groups involved bring a lot of ‘baggage’ from previous experiences, which determine the meaning they attach to the partnership. In my eyes, this ‘baggage’ is described in these thinking frames as well, next to the frames evolving during the partnership.

The theory of SCOT gives some characteristics that help to discern a thinking frame such as:

• It structures the interaction among the members of the group

• It leads to attribution of meaning to a technology

• It provides goals, the ideas and the tools needed for interaction

• It guides thinking and interaction

• It offers the central problems and the related strategies for solving them

• It constrains the freedom of the members of the relevant social group (van der Blonk, 2002: 120)

(22)

2.4 Sub Questions

The Social Process Model and the theory of SCOT will be used to describe and analyse the case study. Figure 6 provides a conceptualisation of how project Columbus will be studied. The theories provide a number of questions that will be used to analyse the case and to answer research question 1 and 2. These sub questions are:

1.1 What are the antecedent conditions of project Columbus?

1.2 Which episodes and encounters can be discerned in the process of project Columbus?

2.1 Which social groups are involved in the project and did they change over time?

2.2 In what ways do the social groups interpret project Columbus?

2.3 What different frames of thinking can be discerned?

2.4 How do the different interpretations of the social groups influence the process of project Columbus?

Figure 6: Conceptual model of the case study --- Scope of case study

2.5 Social Themes

After analysing the case of Columbus, the final step of the research has to be taken; the overall research question needs to be answered. At this stage in research, understanding is gained of the social meaning-making processes that influence the development of Columbus. Insights are developed of the relevant social groups, the perceived problems and problem solving strategies, the distribution – and influence of power, the meanings attributed to the partnership, the different frames of thinking of influence. To make all these insights clearer for WFP and TPG to use them, the challenge is to concentrate the findings. I decided to concentrate the findings into social themes of influence on the development of the partnership.

During the research it turned out that there were several misunderstandings between the different social groups, caused by misinterpretations of each other’s behaviour. That is why I decided to focus on the differences between the partners causing the misinterpretations.

Consequently, social themes are themes of which the partners differ so much that they cause different interpretations of the partnership. In paragraph 3.5 it is explained how the findings were extracted into social themes.

Sequence of events comprisingdevelopment

Outcome Antecedent

conditions

Meaning given to the partnership

Moving the World Columbus

Thinking frames

(23)

The insights gained from analysing project Columbus will most likely be applicable to Moving the World, but will not be inexhaustible. So the social themes influencing the development of project Columbus will most likely be applicable on the partnership as a whole, at the level of Moving the World. This issue of transferability of the findings will be discussed in paragraph 3.7.

(24)

III. Methodology

‘an explorer can never now what he is exploring until it has been explored’ (G.W.Bateson, 1972) This chapter will deal with the issue of research design. Several questions will be answered:

What will be studied? What are the strategies of data collection and -analysis? How will the quality of the research be assured? But before going into detail on the research design, I want to explore the research approach used because it had major practical implications on me, as a researcher.

3.1 Qualitative Nature of the Research

Denzin and Lincoln (1994: 4) describe qualitative research as follows: “The word qualitative implies an emphasis on processes and meanings that are not rigorously examined, or measured (if measured at all), in terms of quantity, amount, intensity, or frequency. Qualitative researchers stress the socially constructed nature of reality, the intimate relationship between the researcher and what is studied, and the situational constraints that shape inquiry. Such researchers emphasise the value-laden nature of inquiry. They seek answers to questions that stress how social experience is created and given meaning. In contrast, quantitative studies emphasise the measurement and analysis of causal relationships between variables, not processes.” Because of the interest in social meaning and the processes, which generate those meanings, this research asked for research methods of a qualitative nature.

3.2 Research Approach

In the beginning of setting up the research design, the choice was made not to apply the more familiar deductive approach, but the inductive approach. As the aim of the research question was not only to describe what was happening but also why something was happening, it was more appropriate to adopt the inductive approach than the deductive. The goal was a close understanding of the research context. Moving from theory to data, as in the deductive approach, would not permit any alternative explanations. It would restrict a rich understanding of the context. The major differences between these approaches are stressed in the table below.

The first practical implication of choosing inductive research is that on the time you have available. Deductive research can be quicker to complete, albeit that time must be devoted to setting up the study prior to data collection and analysis. Data collection is often based on ‘one take’. It is normally possible to predict accurately the time schedules. On the other hand, inductive research can be much more protracted. Often the ideas, based on a much longer period of data collection and analysis, have to emerge gradually. I certainly experienced this during my research; the period of data collection and –analysis has been eight months. Only after that period I had the feeling I had a good understanding about the research context.

A second implication for me was that I constantly had to live with the fear that no useful data patterns and theory would emerge. The deductive approach can be a lower-risk strategy, albeit there are risks, such as the non-return of questionnaires. During the whole period of doing my research I was concerned about the outcome of my research. On the one hand I was prepared to live with this insecurity in order to do a more unconventional research, on the other hand it has been quite difficult to convince myself time after time that it would indeed lead to something useful.

(25)

Deductive Research Inductive Research

• Scientific principles

• Moving from theory to data

• The need to explain causal relationships between variables

• The collection of quantitative data

• The application of controls to ensure validity of data

• The operationalisation of concepts to ensure clarity of definition

• A highly structured approach

• Researcher independence of what is being researched

• The necessity to select samples of sufficient size in order to generalise conclusions

• Gaining an understanding of the meaning humans attach to events

• A close understanding of the research context

• The collection of qualitative data

• A more flexible structure to permit changes of research emphasis as the research progresses

• A realisation that the researcher is part of the research process

• Less concern with the need to generalise

Figure 7: Major differences between inductive and deductive approaches to research (Saunders et al., 2000: 91).

3.3 Subject of Study

Case study

The subject of study is the partnership between WFP and TPG within a social context. This subject asks for a case study for several reasons. Robson (1993: 40) defines case study as ‘the development of detailed, intensive knowledge about a single “case”, or a small number of

“cases”. ‘This strategy will be of particular interest to you if you wish to gain a rich understanding of the context of the research and the processes being enacted’ (Morris and Wood, 1991). And that is exactly what was done in this research. The best way of getting more insight on the development of the partnership is to gain a rich understanding of it. Researching ‘Moving the World’ as a whole with its five initiatives would mean a huge job; five single dissertations could rise from that. Focussing on one initiative in detail, following the process closely, would able the researcher to get the rich understanding needed. The reasons why eventually project Columbus was chosen as the case to be studied was already explained in Chapter I. The matter of transferability of the findings from this single case towards Moving the World will be discussed later in this Chapter.

This research was based on the paradigm of Social Constructivism. This means that it was based on the believe that the final outcome of the partnership was dependent on the social processes involved. As a consequence, all the employees of WFP and TPG who had influence on the outcome of project Columbus, and the interaction between them, were included in the research population. Individuals or groups were picked from this population relating to and depending on the chosen research focus at that moment. In Appendix B the people identified in the research are listed.

3.4 Data collection

Planning

Because the process of the partnership was followed, a longitudinal study was conducted. Doing a longitudinal study has the great advantage of the ability to capture development. The challenge was the time constraint within this research. Initially, 6 months were available for the

(26)

over between TPG and WFP would be finished by that time. After that it would be a matter of determining the final set of KPI’s and writing the Management Plan. As the planning of project Columbus was changed several times and eventually the workshops were held in April 2003, the planning of the research process had to be changed several times as well and the research period had to be lengthened.

Getting access

To get free access to the research population, a good introduction of the research was necessary. The 17^th of October the research was introduced within the WFP. The team members of WFP were very enthusiastic and regarded the research as very useful. They offered full support for the research. If necessary Spring made resources available to go to Rome to interview people.

Rocco Gerritsen was my tutor within Spring. He was also the project leader of Columbus. There was a chance of disturbance of the research, while he was part of the research situation. We discussed this issue and agreed that as long as I was fully aware of my influence on him, there would be no problem. Additionally, he would not interfere in my research and – findings, but he would advice me on potential political sensitive subjects.

Data collection methods

The research was qualitative. Interactions between individuals, experiences, expectations, etc, were followed to determine why the partnership process evolved as it did. All of which are hard to quantify. On top of this much of the data was unconsciously present in the heads of the members of the research group. Qualitative data collection methods suit a qualitative research.

Observations and interviews were used to collect primary data on the social environment of the project. In order to describe the process, collecting documentation was primarily important.

While collecting and filing the data the following distinction was made between the data:

Factors material

Organisational structure

Official documents project (agenda’s, templates, minutes) Official roles played by key participants

Observations Meetings

Primary observations Secondary observations Experiential data

Communication patterns Email

Telephone calls Conference calls Interviews

Official interviews Unofficial conversations Telephone conversations Logbook (reflective notes) Observations

Participant observations emphasise discovering the meanings which people attach to their actions. That is why this kind of observation was used in the research; the actions of the people involved had to be explained through the meaning they attached to the partnership. I adopted a participant as observer role to truly understand the social development within the partnership at an emotional level as well. The purpose as a researcher was revealed to assure access to both organisations. This was done in the first official meeting of ‘Transparency & Accountability’ on the 17th of October 2003, through a presentation.

A thesis about the partnership between TPG and the WFP

Moving the World…

Moving Meaning?