Research Design

In order to properly conduct the research, one must design how to carry it out in a way that fits the research philosophy and approach adopted. This design outlines how we intend to answer our research question. In the following section, we will elaborate on the research strategy utilized in this thesis, before explaining the research methods employed to gather data. Finally, we will highlight the importance of reliability and validity for conducting quality research.

By nature our research is of an exploratory nature. As noted by Robson it is “a valuable means of finding out ‘what is happening; to seek new insights; to ask questions and to assess phenomena in a new light’” (Robson, 2002, p. 59). This aligns well with our goal of exploring what LEO wants, help identify ways to do so, and assess whether or not they are able to at this point in time.

3.3.1 Research Strategy

The research strategy chosen for this thesis takes the form of action research. As pointed out by Bryman and Bell, “Action is an approach in which the action researcher and a client collaborate in the diagnosis of the problem and in the development of a solution based on the diagnosis”

(Bryman & Bell, 2014, p. 424). As further pointed out by Saunders et al., action research’s primary focus is to find a resolution for an organizational problem (Saunders et al., 2012). As of such, the action research strategy calls for the researcher to collaborate with the stakeholders within the organization to solve the issues identified. Hence, the roles adopted can be compared to those of consultants helping an organization, as opposed to purely researching the subject organization without the involvement of relevant stakeholders. However, it is important to emphasize the need for research during the process, as the task otherwise would be of a pure consultancy nature. The action research strategy is of an iterative structure, where the objective is to come up with suggestions for actions. This is based on cycles of diagnosing the problem, planning how to deal with it, taking action, and evaluating the outcome.

The first part of this cycle is what we are going through during our research, where we first diagnose what LEO wants and the barriers to get there, before we assess whether or not it is possible to achieve (and what they need if it is not achievable). Once we have explored these aspects, LEO will then be in a better position to take action, before eventually reflecting on the process and outcome. Within this ‘outer cycle’, a set of ‘inner cycles’ occurs during our research.

In collaboration with LEO, we decided to first conduct interviews with relevant stakeholders.

Thus, we planned the first course of the research process. Next, we took action and carried out the interviews to get an elaborate understanding of the situation. We then reflected on the findings to find the emerging patterns to follow and adapt our future research to. Then the cycle started over.

This process allowed us to continually decide on the next step of the research and what kind of methods to apply. This strategy is often used to improve the practice of the organization, which is an accurate description of LEO’s goal to increase their organizational ambidexterity (Merriam &

Tisdell, 2015).

This strategy suits our research as it is rooted in a highly practical problem of analyzing how to implement a concept and what capabilities are necessary to do so. Being involved with stakeholders increases the likelihood of actual implementation/action, as they are more likely to be convinced that the change is necessary due to their own involvement (Saunders et al., 2012).

With the strategy being very context specific, however, it may be difficult to replicate in detail in other situations. If the actions turn out to be dismissed, the research may become irrelevant and obsolete. As LEO is intend on carrying out this platform development, the belief is that this will not be the consequence of the research and we therefore hope that this issue will not threaten the work done.

Practitioner-Researcher

With one us being a part or the researched organization, the role of practitioner-researcher is adopted (Saunders et al., 2012). This has clear-cut benefits. An important one is that of gaining access to relevant stakeholders in the organization. Having already established relationships with these members, we are able to set up interviews and talk to people casually with ease. In addition, it gives us an elaborate understanding of the ongoings in the organization and the rationales behind different decisions. While these benefits are highly valuable, there are also disadvantages that must be taken into account. Having thorough knowledge of the organization may interfere with the research, as we may neglect asking questions that seem simple to insiders, but may be conceived differently by outsiders. For this reason, we have made sure that the outsider within the research team continually asked the simple questions that might otherwise have been ignored.

Likewise, preconceptions of phenomena by the insider might have influenced the process of our research. To cope we have tried to be as objective as possible doing the entirety of the process.

This is again done by taking a step back and allowing the other researcher be in charge, especially during early stages of the research when some of the subjects were well known by the practitioner-researcher.

The role of practitioner-researcher fits well with the action research strategy, as it further increases the options for continually taking action and reflecting upon them. Being part of both the research group and the organization gives an elaborate understanding of the process and how it can be utilized in the given situation. As of such, it can be expected that the action research strategy will be benefited from in future situations within LEO.

Qualitative Research

When deciding on a research strategy, two different approaches exist: quantitative and qualitative. Neither is superior to the other, the value of a given strategy relies entirely on the objective(s) of the research.

Quantitative research is generally based on the generation of numerical data. This most often results in findings that are generalizable due to the broader perspective with less focus on specific contexts (Saunders et al., 2012). Data collection techniques include questionnaires and surveys, which result in numerical data in the form of e.g. statistics or graphs. Alternatively, qualitative research is used for in-depth analysis of situations that are specific to the given context. It affords the researcher the ability to thoroughly understand complex scenarios through gathering the perspectives of people involved (Saunders et al., 2012). Techniques often used are interviews and observations, which leads to the generation of non-numerical findings based on language, accounts, and interpretations.

With the subjective interpretivist philosophy adopted in our research and an action research strategy, doing qualitative research becomes the obvious choice. Being able to enlighten complex situations through analyzing different stakeholder perspectives is one of the strengths of qualitative research. This is an apparent need in the quest to answer our research question. Thus, open techniques and questions in qualitative form allows the subjects to express themselves elaborately with their own words, which gives us a deeper understanding of their perspectives. In contrast, a quantitative approach would use closed questions that over-empower the researchers to decide the possible answers. With a qualitative strategy, however, acknowledging that the researcher is inevitably biased due to the subjective nature of humans is important and should be taken into consideration when evaluating the findings. In addition, the contextual aspects of qualitative research makes it difficult to replicate, thereby raising questions about whether or not the findings can be generalized to other situations. With the open innovation trends emerging in pharma and LEO being the first organization to build a platform such as the one being researched, it is believed that the findings will provide an example to follow for organizations venturing into the same kind of initiative.

3.3.2 Research Methods

In this section, we present the methods employed to answering our research question. With this thesis being rooted in interpretivism with a qualitative action research strategy, the methods used are of a qualitative nature. Hence, we are taking on a mono method approach without the use of quantitative data collection (Saunders et al., 2012). Although a mixed method of both qualitative and quantitative techniques affords a larger perspective due to differentiation in data, the mono method approach was deemed sufficient in this case. The reasoning behind this is the focus on

internal competencies to carry out an initiative that helps LEO increase their organizational ambidexterity. This calls for in-depth understanding of what LEO wants and why, while also assessing how the initiative can help LEO reach their goal. To do this, quantitative measures are not necessarily helpful and therefore neglected.

When looking into research methods, two apparent types of data comes up in the form of primary data and secondary data. Primary data is data that is collected directly by the researchers. Thus, the data is obtained for the purpose of answering the research question chosen by the investigators (Easterby-Smith, 2012). Examples of primary data include observations, interviews, and surveys (Saunders et al., 2012). On the other hand, secondary data is essentially already existing data that was previously collected for other purposes (Saunders et al., 2012). This kind of data can be highly valuable as it is less time-consuming to obtain. However, it is important to verify the validity of the secondary sources before referencing them in the research, as false information will discredit the validity of the findings.

Primary data

To collect the primary data for this thesis we decided to use semistructured interviews. As pointed out by Kvale and Brinkmann, a research interview is “a conversation that has a structure and a purpose” (Kvale & Brinkmann, 1996, p. 5). This purpose is to unveil information that enables the researcher to reach the objective of answering the research question. The semistructured type of interviews is open and guided (Easterby-Smith, 2012), as it is assumed that “individual respondents define the world in unique ways” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015, p. 110).

This is highly related to the interpretivist stand, where focus is put on how actors make sense of and interpret situations and happenings. Semistructured interviews allowed us to obtain a thorough understanding of the individual views, while simultaneously being able to adjust our question during an interview if, say, the interviewee talks about an unforeseen point that could be interesting for the research. Hence, the semistructured format grant us the opportunity to find out what is wanted, how it is to be achieved, and why it is an objective (Saunders et al., 2012).

There are two alternative forms: highly structured and unstructured interviews. The former, however, is better suited for quantitative research due to its nominal outcomes and its inability to provide flexibility. In contrast, unstructured interviews are more often used when no knowledge of the subject is obtained, thereby making them better suited for very early,

The interviews were held with key stakeholders identified with the Open Innovation team. The amount of interviewees was limited to contain only few people, as the OI project is a small part of LEO’s research organization and only few people have relevant knowledge of the subject of our research.

As of such, interviews were held with the three primary knowledge attainers within LEO:

Niclas Nilsson, Head of Open Innovation, part of Skin Research; Jakob Felding, Senior Director of Skin Research, part of Research; and Thorsten Thormann, Vice President of Research, part of Global Research & Development. An overview of the interviews and the subjects they covered can be found in Appendix 1: Interview Overview.

Secondary Data

Secondary data was also used during our research, especially in setting the stage and understanding the problem at hand. Documentary written materials in the form of the organization website and Open Innovation website, newspaper articles about the ongoing trends in the pharmaceutical industry, as well as reports from major consultancy companies such as McKinsey and Boston Consulting Group, were gathered. These data were used to provide background information about the dispositions of LEO and the relevancy for other organizations and industries, as proposed by Saunders et al. (2012). Likewise, platform websites, e.g. Reddit, and various research papers were examined to provide examples of how to possibly overcome some of the realization barriers that were identified in collaboration with LEO employees.