Data presentation How to design and conduct a theory-building case study

in a data matrix. The simplest form is a matrix consisting of two columns, one for concept A and one for concept B, and a number of rows one row for each case. This matrix is the basis for the final analy- sis of the theory-building case study.

9.1.7 Data analysis

The aim of this analysis is to draw a conclusion about a whether there is a relationship between the concepts A and B or not and, if so, b what type of relation this is. We advise starting this process of “discovering” relations between concepts by determining whether the stronger types of causal relations deterministic ones are discernable in the data matrix and to look for weaker causal relations probabilistic ones if such stronger types are not found. The rationale of this procedure is that it is important to find strong causal relations which, say, explain 100 per cent of variance if they exist. Or, in other words, this procedure helps the researcher to avoid the error that only a probabilistic relation is dis- covered even in situations in which the data matrix contains evidence for stronger relations. The exploration of the data matrix is proposed in this order: 1. looking for a sufficient condition; 2. looking for a necessary condition; 3. looking for a deterministic relation; 4. looking for a probabilistic relation. We will discuss now how this could be done.

9.1.7.1 Sufficient condition

First, assess whether there is evidence for a sufficient condition. A suf- ficient condition exists if a specific value of concept A always results in a specific value of concept B. The existence of a sufficient condition in the selected cases can be assessed by ordering the data matrix in such a way that cases with the same value of concept A are grouped together. If the value of concept B is constant in a subgroup of cases with the same value of A, then this can be taken as evidence that this specific value of A is a sufficient condition for the value of B observed in this subgroup of cases. This procedure is very similar to the way in which a sufficient condition is tested in a theory-testing case study. This rela- tion can then be formulated as follows: Proposition 1: Value X A of A is a sufficient condition for value X B of B. In this proposition, X A is the value of A by which the subgroup is defined in which this relation was discovered e.g. a minimum level of management commitment and X B is the value of B observed in that subgroup e.g. success of a project.

9.1.7.2 Necessary condition

Next assess whether there is evidence for a necessary condition. A nec- essary condition exists if a specific value of concept B only exists if there is a specific value of concept A. The existence of a necessary condition can be assessed by ordering the data matrix in such a way that cases with the same value of concept B are grouped together. If the value of concept A is constant in a subgroup of cases with the same value of B, then this can be taken as evidence that the specific value of A is a nec- essary condition for the value of B. This relation can then be formu- lated as follows: Proposition 2: Value X A of A is a necessary condition for value X B of B. In this proposition, X B is the value of B by which the subgroup is defined in which this relation was discovered e.g. success of a project and X A is the value of A observed in that subgroup e.g. minimum level of management commitment.

9.1.7.3 Deterministic relation

Next assess whether there is evidence for a deterministic relation, mean- ing that an increase or decrease in the value of concept A consistently results in a change in a consistent direction in the value of concept B. The existence of a deterministic relation can be assessed by rank ordering the cases in the data matrix in accordance with the value of concept A. If, in the resulting rank order, the value of concept B con- sistently increases or decreases as well, then this can be taken as evi- dence that A and B have a deterministic relation. This relation can then be formulated as follows: Proposition 3: Concept A has a deterministic relation with concept B.