Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on Intellectual Capital

Thanaletchumi Sathasivam et al.
holders, one Certificate holder and two holders <strong>of</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r degrees. The average number <strong>of</strong> years in <strong>the</strong>
project was 6.4 years.
Figure 1: Process for developing <strong>the</strong> questions (adapted from Wengraf (2001, p. 157))
3.3 Interviews
The interview process followed <strong>the</strong> recommendations <strong>of</strong> Taylor and Bogdan (1998) concerning <strong>the</strong>
interactions between <strong>the</strong> interviewer and <strong>the</strong> interviewees. A total <strong>of</strong> eleven interviews were
conducted with members <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> management staff in September 2009. These interviews were
conducted across nine different departments in <strong>the</strong> organisation. Individual interview participant
educational levels included seven Bachelor holders, three Master holders, and one Doctorate holder.
The average number <strong>of</strong> years on <strong>the</strong> project was 5 to 6 years. All participants except one were
between 30-39 years, with one being between 20 and 29 years.
4. Results and findings
Based on <strong>the</strong> approach explained in <strong>the</strong> previous section, <strong>the</strong> findings were analysed using iterative
<strong>the</strong>matic analysis (content analysis), with three levels <strong>of</strong> coding used (open coding, axial coding, and
narrative coding). The researcher performed three focus groups as well as 11 individual interviews in
order to identify <strong>the</strong> specific areas <strong>of</strong> concern for <strong>the</strong> study. The focus groups discussed a total <strong>of</strong> ten
questions, each <strong>of</strong> which was aligned with a specific construct that <strong>the</strong> researcher identified from
within <strong>the</strong> research. Interview respondents were presented with thirteen questions, also aligned to <strong>the</strong>
underlying constructs. This section provides a brief summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> answers provided by each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
groups.
4.1 Results from focus groups
The first question in <strong>the</strong> focus group discussed <strong>the</strong> outcomes <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> technology transfer process.
Responses indicated that <strong>the</strong>re was room for improvement. The groups were consistent in identifying
technology transfer as being a full process from discussion to implementation. One group identified
that <strong>the</strong> company doing <strong>the</strong> transfer did not perform <strong>the</strong> technology transfer as expected. However,
<strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r two groups indicated that <strong>the</strong>re were failures on <strong>the</strong> part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> radar manufacturing
company in terms <strong>of</strong> learning and being able to implement <strong>the</strong> system. The groups were consistent in
not seeing a full achievement <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> company‟s objectives.
One group indicated that “we need to overhaul <strong>the</strong> workflow, processes, procedures and policies to
accommodate <strong>the</strong> project”. Ano<strong>the</strong>r indicated that while <strong>the</strong> process was fine, it didn‟t meet <strong>the</strong> needs
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> environment and culture. The third stated that <strong>the</strong>re was some adjustment needed and that <strong>the</strong>
company continued to have adjustment needs for <strong>the</strong> project. Support staff <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> technology transfer
was mixed, with some staff being highly supportive while o<strong>the</strong>rs were not.
391