Description of data

Qualitative case studies primarily use contextually rich data from bounded real-world set-tings to investigate a focused phenomenon (Barratt, Choi et Li 2011, 329) and to describe the essence of it in a systematic, concrete, and detailed manner (cf. Stake 1995, Yin 2009).

Making ethnographic research entails data collection by participating and observing the everyday life of the actors in a situation and by interviewing them in order to analytically describe and understand a community or a group and the culture it belongs to (Metsä-muuronen2006,94;Murchison2010).Tointerpretthemeaningorfunctionof human be-havior, non-structured data is favored instead of data coded in accordance with pre-deter-mined analytic categories (cf. Metsämuuronen 2006, 95). Conducting a single-case process

study, on the other hand, entails diving deep and with systematicity to the sources of in-formation to attain rich longitudinal data (cf. Ann Langley in Gehman et al. 2018, 6). All in all, case studies allow the use of a variety of data sources (Baxter et Jack 2008). With ample data, a reader with different orientation can fashion an interpretation different from the researcher's narrative (Donmoyer 2019; see also Gehman et al. 2018). For the same reason, the study should provide sufficiently low-inference descriptions of behavior and excerpts fromtranscribedinterviews (Donmoyer 2019).

Bearingtheseguidelinesin mind, the study on the SO-NI project was based on systematic triangulation and thick description of the data (data triangulation refers to use of multiple and diverse data to gain better understanding of researched process; cf. Yin 2009 and Pe-terson 2019, 154). The target was to gather as much evidence on the processes whereby actors construct meaning as possible. Data collection began with three preliminary inter-views with Finnish open innovation experts in order to get an overview on how cross-boundary co-creation is exploited in Finnish corporate life at the moment, and to test the chosen research perspective. The actual research data was gathered thereafter through real-time observing of the SO-NI-team: its interaction in the meetings and chats, and on Solved platform (SO-p). In addition, my own fieldnotes and project documentation were collected and used as data. Five of the team members were interviewed in different phases during the process. These interviews were eight altogether.

The SO-NI team worked together for three months. Data collection was spread along the process flow. The process map is presented in figures 7 and 8. The first one represents the process as it was introduced to the team in the beginning of the project. The second one is an updated version made by me. It bases on the first with some changes made on the time-line to make it correspond the actual course of events, and some remarks concerning the data gathering for my own research (in light grey boxes). The project included three main phases which are presented on page 59 after figures 7 and 8. Each of them had a specific function and was targeted to produce apredefinedinput–memos,reports,spreadsheets, andslideshows–forthefollowingphase.

Group members

1. Core Group

SO1, SO2, NI1 and NI2 2. Strategy Group core group + SO3, NI3, NI4 and NI5

3. Other Groups

• ES stakeholders (not participating in the end, however)

• Extended SO expert team: SO4, SO5

All the groups together are referred to as “SO-NI team” in this study.

“SO core team” is used to refer to participants from SO side only, “NI core team” to partici-pants from NI’s side.

SO5 participated in the role of the evaluator of project deliverables.

Phase I: results from interviews &

benchmarks & online feedback

Phase II: Co-creation on sustainability concept

Phase III: Final results and roll out plan. Next

steps.

Extended ES Stakeholders Extended SO expert team NI and ES management/board

it was presented for the SO-NI team in the beginning of the project. Source: SO.

Kickoff. Discussion on

Week 48: SO1 and SO3 share in-spirational material on SO-p:

ideas from a recent conference, a chart, a report, slides. SO1 asks for ideas for benchmark ‘sustain-ability’ and a shared vision for the future of NI. Shares the list of people SO should interview – no ES-names on it. SO1 shares a the use NI’s internal WS, a sche-dule for the project phase II, and responsiblesforthebenchmarks.

of the WS1 in an open spreadsheet, asking the team to prioritize. some weeks earlier, SO4 shares the

Core groups of SO and

Debriefing of WS1 and discussion on project deliverables. Present: SO1–

SO4. Next day, SO2+SO4 continue negotiations on final reporting.

The interviews made for the thesis:

Weeks 50–51 (SO1, SO3, NI1, NI2), 6 (SO4, NI1), 9–10 (SO1, NI2)

1) A benchmark study was conducted by SO core team as a part of the SO-NI project and consisted of eight interviews and eight desk research. The study package was conducted in order to clarify how other companies or hubs on the energy sector and other fields as well deal with sustainability issues – how do they organize their sustainability functions, and what are their business models related to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

These findings directed the team towards reflecting the strengths and weaknesses of NI in the area of sustainability, and to analyze its current innovation models, products, and pro-cesses, and potential for implementing models, products, or processes on this field. The question was: what does it take to get NI to the lead sustainability change within ES – what would be the tasks, competences, knowhow, or tools required?

These reflections were overlapping with the second phase: 2) the co-creation that was planned to produce the sustainability concept for NI: strategy, framework, focus, commit-ments, targets, action plan, and operational model. The last phase included presenting 3) the final results and roll out plan, discussions around them, and specifying of next steps.

Every phase had as a core one face-to-face workshop or hybrid conference together with the teams of both NI and SO. The project started with a kickoff organized as a hybrid meet-ing, NI members participating from their office abroad, SO members from Finland. In the second phase, the shared interaction with the whole team took place in face-to-face work-shop. The feedback session in the end of the third phase was again a hybrid meeting. Out-side these three events, the interaction took place in varying team compositions in tele-conference meetings and phone calls, chats, or mails, and even in face-to-face between those who worked at the same office. The team also used the online platform of SO (SO-p) designed for cross-boundary co-creation in sustainability-related projects.

The data consisted of 23 documents including recordings of meetings, core team chats, project documents created by the SO-NI team, and my own research interviews and field-notes (table 5).

Table 5. Data sources.

Method Description Documentation Research objective

Interviews 3x semi-structured pilot inter-views with Finnish creative team-work / open innovation experts (à 30 min)

with SO1, SO3, NI1, NI2 in differ-ent points of the project (à 30 in-terview with SO1 after the project (90 min)

Transcript of an audio record of F2F meeting

Observation Kickoff meeting, online (60 min) Transcript of an audio record Illuminating tensions and patterns of change in the

online with SO1, SO2, NI1 (60 min)

WS1 (one day) face to face Transcript of an audio record (partial)

SO’s internal meeting after the workshop unraveling the first im-pressions, online (60 min)

Transcript of an audio record

Project feedback conversation, online (90 min)

Chats and messages on SO-p

Interaction of the whole team on SO-p; sporadic, short message Interaction of the SO core team

on SO-p via chat functionality

Fieldnotes A chronological diary steadily re-plenished with new notes

The recordings were transcribed as long as it was technically possible. Fieldnotes were ac-complished in a form of a diary, where events, documents etc. ran in chronological order, but notes or annotations regarding them could be added even afterwards when there was better ground for conclusions. This ensured the steady linking of data and memos without missing the clear process view of the whole.