CASE STUDY QUESTIONS ? PLEASE HELP ME TO ANSWER THIS

As the World Works

My ethnography-based research touched four continents and involved interactions with more than 10,000 people over the course of 3 months on the road. After over 730 h of field research, more than 3,000 pictures, and almost 30 hours of participant-generated video footage, the study yielded a plethora of rich data.

The Ways People Interact

The primary purpose of this internationally inclusive study was to bring focus to physical and virtual work behaviors. Our team wanted to identify the ways people interact and how employers are supporting and fostering that behavior. What we learned would inform Herman Miller's new product development and create knowledge that could be shared with customers.

Observation

This was the cornerstone of the methodologies. We worked with the customer contacts to determine which departments in their buildings were best to observe. With this, there is definitely some sample bias, but it is quite intentional. We were looking for study participants who spend more time interacting with others as a function of their jobs. The observation tended to happen across a floor or two of an office building. This helped assure that one subset didn't cloud the research findings.

We were often given a desk to sit at as a home base. From there, we spent our time watching employees' interactions. While there was a risk that having us on-site might alter the employees' behavior, this didn't appear to get in the way. The employees' interactions were between themselves; we weren't really part of the office dynamic. In fact, most employees didn't pay any attention to us.

Participant Documentation

We asked employees to use an interaction log, which is a one-page form with check boxes, to chart the characteristics of interaction. We wanted an easy way to paint a picture of each interaction. It captured things like the number of people participating in the interaction, duration, space where it occurred, technology and tools that were used, and the levels of privacy they had, both visual and acoustical.

A subsample of the participants, typically 10 to 15 over 2 days, was asked to complete the log. We didn't want this to become a burden, so each of these participants completed the log for only one of the two research days. The volume of completed logs intrigued us. In most cases, people were surprised how many logs and how many interactions they had in the course of a day.

Online Survey

The online survey was administered to all workers at the customer sites. Our survey gathered information similar to the interaction log. Employees were asked to think about one of their most recent interactions. They were then presented with six different types of space and asked which typified where the interaction happened. The spaces were depicted with photography from their own spaces and a written description. Once they selected a space type, they were asked about the characteristics of the interaction. The survey was customized for each research site with the company's logo information and images from their company environment.

Focus Groups

We gathered 8 to 10 employees for focus groups at each site to help us better understand what we were seeing. We explored their most favorite and least favorite spaces. They talked about where they go to get heads-down, focused work done, and where they go to interact. We asked where participants bump into others and have unplanned but meaningful conversation. We also discussed what tools and technologies were utilized in these spaces.

Video Diaries

Day-in-the-life video diaries captured employee interactions. Employees were asked to find situations that might be insightful and in which they could tell us why they were doing things the way they did. We asked that they capture the environment around them when they were interacting. The videos provided a wealth of information from the participants' perspectives.

Pictures

We took many pictures at each site to document the types of areas and the interactions that took place within them. Photos were later categorized and tagged with descriptors.

Utilization Study

At the beginning of each site visit, we asked the company to provide floor plans of their spaces. These were used to chart interactions. Because we toured the space every h, documenting where the interactions occurred, we were able to create a heat map of the space. This showed where interactions were happening and where they weren't. We captured characteristics of the interactions, such as how many people were interacting, with what technology, which work tools were used, and postures of the participants.

Results Were Rich

As one might expect, the building and its interior layout and its furnishings play a huge role in how people interact in the work environment.

The utilization study yielded one of the more interesting statistical nuggets. We observed and charted that 70 percent of the interactions took place around the individual offices. On the one hand, this makes senseit is, after all, where the people work. On the other hand, this reinforces the notion that people don't need formal conference rooms to interact with their colleagues.

Through the focus groups, we found that people go through an almost unconscious checklist to determine if they should find a meeting space or stay in their individual space. When someone walks up to an individual's desk, that individual considers the following:

• How long is this going to take?
• Do we need to have anyone else join us for the discussion?
• Are there any tools (e.g., whiteboard, tack board, projector, teleconference phone, and so on) that we need for a successful outcome?
• Is the topic we are discussing appropriate for those around us?

When people are driven to a meeting space, they avoid areas that don't meet their needs. People know what works for them and what doesn't. The primary drivers that determine where people go when an interaction needs to become more formal are the following:

• ProximityPeople typically won't bypass areas that work in favor of a "cooler" space further away.
• AvailabilityIs the place available for collaboration?
• TechnologyDoes it have the right technology tools for the task at hand?
• LightingDoes the place have access to natural light? Is there adequate lighting?
• Tools (e.g., whiteboard, tack board, and so on)Does the collaboration space have the tools that will make the meeting productive?

The long-held view that the corporate environment is going away is in stark contrast to the value placed on the office by the participants. These people used words like increased efficiency, clarity of communication, and better personal connection to describe what they value about the office. Even in the age of technology and telecommuting, face-to-face interactions are still held in high regard.

Source: McDaniel, C. J., & Gates, R. (2015). Marketing Research Essentials (10 ed.). pp.172 John Wiley & Sons, lnc.

Questions

1. How might Herman Miller use these research findings (make reference and use examples from the case study)?

1. Mention and explain three other research techniques that could have been used to obtain the same information?

1. Provide at least three advantages of combining ethnographic research with other types of research with explanation?