Data collection methods

As previously described, this thesis is analysing data through a multi-method analysis and gathering data through concurrent mixed methods in a cross-sectional

Organisation Name Job-title Interview-round

LEO Pharma Johnny HR Director 1

LEO Pharma Jesper RPA Specialist 1

LEO Pharma Manos Director of Process and Techonology in cooperate HR 1

LEO Pharma Jens Process Guru in R&D 1

Skatteforvaltningen Tina Chief Consultant of the automation Department 1 Skatteforvaltningen Carsten RPA Specialist and Lead developer 1

Skatteforvaltningen Murssal Employee in DigiPof 1

Skatteforvaltningen Richo Employee in DigiPof 1

KPMG Mikael RPA Specialist 2

KPMG Kristoffer RPA Specialist 2

LEO Pharma Johnny HR Director 3

LEO Pharma Jesper RPA Specialist 3

LEO Pharma Manos Director of Process and Techonology in cooperate HR 3

LEO Pharma Jens Process Guru in R&D 3

Skatteforvaltningen Tina Chief Consultant of the Automation Department 3 Skatteforvaltningen Carsten RPA Specialist and Lead developer 3

Skatteforvaltningen Richo Employee in DigiPof 3

Skatteforvaltningen Murssal Employee in DigiPof 3

TABLE3.1: Participating informants and interview rounds

time horizon. This is in line with the Pragmatic paradigm as well as Design Sci-ence Research. Moreover, we have chosen to mainly conduct semi-structured in-terviews, as our target as researchers are to uncover issues and challenges within the current environment in the organisation. By setting up themes and concepts in our interviews, we do steer the conversation towards relevant topics while still allowing the respondents freedom to tell some sub-stories to the general concept.

This has allowed us to uncover several challenges (A. Hevner & Chatterjee, 2010;

Saunders et al., 2016; James & Burkhardt, 1975).

During our semi-structured interviews, we have followed Robyn Longhurst’s guidelines on achieving an objective interview-situation (Longhurst, 2003).

"I would not necessarily ask these questions in the order listed. Allowing the discussion to unfold in a conversational manner offers participants the chance to explore issues they feel are important. At the end of the interview or focus group; however, I would check my schedule to make sure that all the questions had been covered at some stage during the interview or focus group."

(Longhurst, 2003)

We followed the questionnaire list set out in Table 3.2. We did follow it spo-radically as we tried to welcome the informant into a situation where they felt comfortable sharing things that they thought relevant to the challenges instead as to adhere to the above quote.

Moreover, we asked to meet the informants in their ’own home’ which in this

Skatteforvaltningen LEO Pharma Question Theory Concept Tina, Murssal Manos, Jens Would you say (..)? IT Governance IT benefits

Murssal Jesper, Jens Which criteria(...)? IT Governance Automation criteria Carsten Johnny What factors (...)? Automation RPA Criteria

TABLE3.2: Interview guide sample

Please note that the following columns are NOT included in this table;

Sub-part of theory, operationalisation, expected output. Please find the full interview-guide in Appendix P

case is their office, as to give them the setting where they are closest to the issues at hand.

Before each interview, we have informed the informants that we are recording it and will be transcribing every word they say. This has changed the behaviour of some of the informants, as they have given more information after the recorder have been turned off. These are things that they had in their heart but did not want to be traced back to them. We have, therefore decided not to use any inputs outside the recording in this thesis.

Before the interviews, we created a list of all interview-questions that are to be asked and assigned the questions to each informant as well as linked them to the relevant part of the theory that we wanted to uncover. Table 3.2 illustrates a small part of our interview-set and a small subset of our columns. The full interview-guide can be found in Appendix P.

To minimise any potential language barriers, we decide to interview each re-spondent in their native language. For most of them, this was in Danish, but a couple was conducted in English. Language differences can have consequences in a research, as concepts in one language may be interpreted differently in an-other language. Particularly in qualitative research since it works with word and language is a key factor in data collection, analysis and representation of the tex-tual data (van Nes et al., 2010).

Opposed to conducting all interviews in English, this approach ensured that all the concepts were understood and interpreted correctly by the respondents.

For the readability of this study, every Danish quotes have been translated into English to the best of our ability, while still attempting to capture the tone and the phrasing of the interviewees.

Following the initial interviews, we have held design thinking workshops, which is an important tool in Design Science Research as this method uncovers flaws

and solutions in an artefact. Instead of merely asking questions about the arte-fact, we work with the informants to solve the issues directly in the prototype (A. R. Hevner et al., 2004).

As our data-sources are not only qualitative, we do also have some secondary data in terms of quantitative Excel-sheets and other documents, that contains the current practices and mathematical models being used internally in the or-ganisations in the selection process. The documents from LEO Pharma can be seen in Appendix R, S and T, and the documents from Skatteforvaltningen can be seen in Appendix U and V. They are especially important because they con-tain the current weights and criteria for receiving a good prioritisation and might uncover other challenges in the organisations.

3.7.4 Interview journey and the challenges with multiple